NRA/Gun Lobby Spanked Hard in 2008 Elections

bucky2gun4250We may finally be looking at the end times for the gun freaks in this country, thanks in large part to their love affair with their Republican benefactors.

The Brady Campaign did a comprehensive analysis of the recent elections.

The report shows that the NRA was one of the biggest losers in the 2008 elections:

* The NRA spent over thirty-one times more money against Obama than it spent in its negative efforts in 2000 against Al Gore.

* In head-to-head races between candidates endorsed or “A” rated by the NRA and candidates endorsed by the Brady Campaign, Brady candidates won more than 80 percent (including eight of eight U.S. Senate races).

* The NRA spent over 90 percent of its independent expenditures in Senate races on losing candidates (for elections called as of this morning).

By contrast:

* More than 90 percent of Brady Campaign endorsed candidates nationwide won their elections.

* In U.S. Senate races, Brady endorsed candidates won 10 out of 10 races.

* In U.S. House races, Brady endorsed candidates won more than 90 percent of their races.

gundunceDespite this devastating loss for red neck America, the Red Neck Grand Puba Criminal-in-Chief and resident pond scum demonstrated once again the petulant disregard for the law that has characterized his entire disastrous presidency.

A last-minute rule adopted by the Bush administration after the election forces states to allow loaded, concealed weapons in National Park lands within their borders – even if states specifically prohibit the practice in their own state parks. Whether you believe that’s a good idea or not – and clearly we do not – just-uncovered government documents show that the previous administration ignored warnings from Interior Department officials that the rule was being changed in violation of Federal law because of a rush to get things in place before Bush left office. link

Its time to remind the whores men and woman of the gun lobby, to paraphrase our African Prince; We won.

A ‘sound thrashing’ is more accurate however in the case of the NRA.

Let sanity prevail

,

  1. #1 by Lumberjack on February 13, 2009 - 11:33 am

    Maybe the robbers , rapist and murderers will think twice before they go to a federal park and do their thing, knowing that some one in there could be armed. i believe that if more people carried guns we would all be safer.

  2. #2 by admin on February 13, 2009 - 11:41 am

    Wow Lumberjack! Didn’t take ya long.

    I’m sure you make the average gun freak proud.

    I’m sure Socrates is throwing up, but that shouldn’t stop anyone from buying you a beer for you bullet-proof argument (no pun intended).

  3. #3 by Richard Warnick on February 13, 2009 - 11:43 am

    The National Park Service already allowed loaded firearms in the 61 units of the National Park System where hunting is permitted.

    Firearms were first banned in national parks in the 1930s in a bid to curb poaching. The current rules, implemented under President Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, allow visitors to national parks and refuges to possess firearms so long as they are “rendered temporarily inoperable or are packed, cased or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use.”

    National parks are among the safest places in the country, no gun-toting would-be vigilantes are needed.

  4. #4 by Moribund Republic on February 13, 2009 - 11:43 am

    ‘aint nuthin gonna happen to the 2nd amendment. Good thing your gun right is now secured to the Bill of Rights after Supreme court review.

    Obama is in over his head, and this will become a least of his worries.

    He would first have to stack a favorable Supreme court, and then make the attempt. He is a one term president in my view, and will not have the opportunity.

  5. #5 by Bob S. on February 13, 2009 - 11:48 am

    Is that Cliff hiding or would cowering be a better word behind the “Admin” pseudonym ?

    Wow, reading through the link really shows me what “parroting” is all about.

    I really trust the analysis of an organization that takes a bill that has the following summary:

    7/31/2008–Introduced.
    Second Amendment Enforcement Act – Amends specified law prohibiting the killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of Columbia to declare that nothing in it or any other provision of law shall authorize or be construed to permit the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or regulatory authority of the District to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of persons otherwise not prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses, or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by federal law nor subject to the National Firearms Act. Denies the District any authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms. Amends the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 to repeal the definition of a machine gun as any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual reloading. (Thus repeals the ban on semiautomatic weapons.) Redefines “machine gun” as any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or is readily restored to shoot automatically, more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger. Includes the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. Repeals the District’s:
    (1) registration requirement for possession of firearms;
    (2) prohibition on possession of handgun restricted pistol bullets; and
    (3) requirement that, under certain conditions, firearms in the possession of certain individuals must be kept unloaded, disassembled, or with the trigger locked. Repeals the requirement that licensed firearms dealers keep records of ammunition received into inventory and ammunition sold or transferred. Maintains the current ban on the possession and control of a sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, or short-barreled rifle. Eliminates criminal penalties for possessing an unregistered firearm. Amends federal law to eliminate criminal penalties for carrying a pistol whether loaded or unloaded in one’s dwelling house, place of business, or on land possessed by such person. Amends the federal criminal code to make it lawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver a handgun to a District resident if such individual is licensed in Maryland or Virginia to do so

    And turns it into a bill that

    Envision a Washington, D.C. in which it would be entirely legal for individuals or groups to carry loaded AK-47s, or set up .50 caliber sniper rifles that can bring down aircraft, near Cabinet buildings, motorcades, or blocks from the Capitol, ready and able to fire at any number of high-ranking government officials or foreign dignitaries. It may sound ludicrous, but that would be the legal reality if H.R. 6691 becomes law.

    Anybody have any evidence that 50 caliber sniper rifles can shoot down planes?
    Most anti-aircraft weapons require a very high cyclical rate of fire to shoot down planes….how is a single shot, or even 5 going to manage that same task.

    Can you say “hyperbole”, I knew you could.

    Read the portion about allowing people to walk around with sniper rifles and compare it to what the summary says

    Amends federal law to eliminate criminal penalties for carrying a pistol whether loaded or unloaded in one’s dwelling house, place of business, or on land possessed by such person

    Sorry but maybe their analysis is just a little biased, eh?

  6. #6 by Bob S. on February 13, 2009 - 11:58 am

    Let’s look at some other pieces of information:

    National parks are meant to be laid-back places where the stress and strain of work and home are left behind for a more mellow experience.

    But increasingly, those rangers in their Smokey Bear hats who give talks on nature and lead campfire singalongs – especially the ones trained in law enforcement – are facing crime and violence.

    A watchdog group last week warned that law enforcement work in national parks is the most dangerous in federal service.

    “National Park Service officers are 12 times more likely to be killed or injured as a result of an assault than FBI agents,” the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility reported. “National Park Service commissioned law-enforcement officers were victims of assaults 111 times in 2004, nearly a third of which resulted in injury. This figure tops the 2003 total of 106 assaults and the 2002 total of 98.”

    Or this

    SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST, California (CNN) — Beyond the towering trees that have stood here for thousands of years, an intense drug war is being waged.
    Authorities uncovered more than $1 billion worth of pot plants in Sequoia National Forest this week.

    Illegal immigrants connected to Mexico’s drug cartels are growing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of marijuana in the heart of one of America’s national treasures, authorities say. It’s a booming business that, federal officials say, feeds Mexico’s most violent drug traffickers….
    Authorities have arrested 38 people and seized 29 automatic weapons, high-powered rifles and other guns, Boudreaux said.

    Perhaps running a Google search would show that there is a serious issue with crime in national parks.

  7. #7 by Richard Warnick on February 13, 2009 - 12:15 pm

    Then there’s this:

    According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, there were 1.65 violent crimes per 100,000 national park visitors in 2006—making national parks some of the safest places in the United States.

  8. #8 by Bob S. on February 13, 2009 - 12:18 pm

    So, do you want to be that 1.65 per 100,000?

  9. #9 by Bob S. on February 13, 2009 - 12:23 pm

    How many people visit the National Parks?

    Total recreation visitors to the National Parks in 2005: 273,488,751

    * Visit the Public Use Statistics for more detailed information.

    So, it is okay for 1.65 / 100,000 that means in 2005 there were 4,512 violent crimes.

    How many violent crimes have to happen before people are allowed to defend themselves effectively?

  10. #10 by Richard Warnick on February 13, 2009 - 12:31 pm

    Bob S.–

    You could also say that a visitor to a national park has a 0.00165% chance of being involved in a violent crime.

    The point is, our national parks are among the safest places in the USA. Even taking into account that some of the highest-visitation parks, like the National Mall (24 million visitors a year), are in urban areas.

    Take your deadly play toys somewhere else please. This last-minute Bush rule change will be reversed.

  11. #11 by Bob S. on February 13, 2009 - 12:36 pm

    Richard,

    How about this, if you don’t want to be around firearms, camp elsewhere. I have just as much right to be there and to take reasonable steps to defend myself while being there.

    If you choose not to carry firearms, that is your right. Your right to remain defenseless does not mean that I have to be defenseless.

    Concealed carry license holders are some of the most law abiding people around, they aren’t the ones people have to worry about carrying firearms.

    Crime happens everywhere, even in the most safest places places in the USA, right?
    It doesn’t make sense at the outside boarder of the park I can carry a firearm but cross the magical line and I can’t. That magical line doesn’t keep all the crime out, does it?

  12. #12 by Richard Warnick on February 13, 2009 - 12:41 pm

    Bob S.–

    Where, pray tell, can I camp where I can be sure there are no gun-toting rednecks? Where?

    I was backpacking in Kentucky once, on the Sheltowee Trace. In the middle of the night, my tent was suddenly surrounded by dogs and guys with shotguns looking for animals to kill.

  13. #13 by Bob S. on February 13, 2009 - 1:37 pm

    Richard,

    How about your own property, isn’t that what we gunnies here often?

    That you don’t mind us carrying on our place, just don’t take it off our property. Why can’t it be the other way around.

    How about creating your own park areas, purchase the land, charge admission and since it’s your property; decide if you want firearms on it or not.

    Aren’t you glad those guys with shotguns were law abiding citizens and not drug dealers worried that you might find their crops?

    Were you harmed by the hunters? Guessing not or you would have mentioned it right. So, legitimate gun owners carrying guns hurt NO people….and the problem is? Did their guns scare you?

  14. #14 by Cliff Lyon on February 13, 2009 - 1:38 pm

    Bob S,

    I’d have thought by now you’d have figured out that good policy is driven by the rule, not the exception.

    Advanced societies dismiss percentages under 5% when factoring. The fact that you are using a 1.6% numbers may provide us a hint as to WHY the NRA GOT ITS ASS KICKED.

    Are ya feelin’ it Bob?

  15. #15 by Richard Warnick on February 13, 2009 - 1:41 pm

    Bob S.–

    Let me wake you up in the middle of the night, point a shotgun at you, and then you can tell me if no harm was done. Needless to say, nobody apologized when it happened to me.

    Buy my own national park, and figure out how to keep gun nuts out of it using my own resources? Why didn’t I think of that before? Bob, you’re a genius.

  16. #16 by Bob S. on February 13, 2009 - 1:44 pm

    By the way Richard,

    Nice dodge….care to answer whether or not you want to be the 1.65 / 100,000?
    Or how many violent assaults are needed before people can defend themselves?

  17. #17 by Bob S. on February 13, 2009 - 1:48 pm

    Gee Cliff,

    From all the evidence presented by the Brady Campaign, only a small percentage of firearm dealers are the problem….shouldn’t our policies then be governed by the rule instead of the exception?

    Several ATF studies have highlighted the fact that most crime guns are traced through a tiny subset of the federally licensed firearm dealers in this country. For example, in 1998, only 1.2 percent of the existing dealers (1,020) were responsible for selling more than 57 percent of the guns traced to crime. Most of these same dealers had a significant percentage of their traced guns linked to crime within a short time period, which ATF considers indicative of gun trafficking. One of the things ATF did was to require these high-risk dealers to provide information on sales of used guns to help identify additional crime guns linked to these stores. Under the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of ATF to gather additional data, ATF will be forced to abandon this focused enforcement effort.

    But the rule changes proposed by gun banners like you are for the majority…not the exception. How do you explain your that?

  18. #18 by Richard Warnick on February 13, 2009 - 1:48 pm

    Bob S.–

    The chance of being involved in a violent crime in a national park (either as perp or victim) is 0.00165%.

    Even if you apply Dick Cheney’s one percent doctrine, you’re short by 0.99835%

  19. #19 by Bob S. on February 13, 2009 - 1:52 pm

    Richard,

    Again and again, I will tell you, regardless of the probability it is the stakes.

    The probability of being in accident on any one day is very minor…why not cancel your life insurance?

    The probability of a fire in your home is slim….why not throw out your smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.

    Just because you don’t want to take what I consider sensible precautions doesn’t give you the right to stop me from taking those precautions.

    My family, myself at stake….I want to do everything I can to reduce the risk.

  20. #20 by Richard Warnick on February 13, 2009 - 2:04 pm

    Bob S.–

    You can take your friggin gun into a national park. You just have to keep it unloaded and stored in a manner that will prevent its ready use. Is that too much to ask?

    My safety and peace of mind is much more important to me. How about you and your gun-toting buddies stay out of MY national parks if you don’t like the rules?

  21. #21 by Bob S. on February 13, 2009 - 2:10 pm

    Yes, it is too much to ask….see HELLER V. WASHINGTON D.C.

    5 Supreme Court Justices agreed that those types of restrictions are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

    The national parks belong to all of us Richard, not just you. My firearm doesn’t interfere with your rights, the ban on accessible firearms does interfere with my rights.

    I say the same thing “My safety and peace of mind is much more important to me.”

    Again, the dodge. How many violent crimes are needed before people are allowed to have firearms that aren’t secured in a manner to “prevent its ready use”.

    Are you willing to be that 1.65 / 100,000 people that are victims of violent crime?

    How many non-violent crimes are there in parks? How many robberies, thefts might be prevented because the campers are armed. Or do you think it is something that people have to accept, being ripped off?

  22. #22 by Moribund Republic on February 13, 2009 - 2:24 pm

    The election of Obama has precipitated the addition of thousands of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens. The gun and ammunition buying craze is continuing unabated. From the point of Obama’s election this has been the case.

    In the city of Grand Junction Colorado one gun dealers sold his 20,000 pieces in 1 month and then closed up shop and left town.

    Needless to say, those who purchased now will no doubt fight to keep their weapons politically. Obama isn’t forever, and he is shaping up to be a proper establishment type water carrier anyway.

  23. #23 by Richard Warnick on February 13, 2009 - 2:26 pm

    Bob S.–

    In my e-mail, I get weekly law enforcement reports that cover incidents on national forests, national parks and public lands. I have yet to read one single report of a firearm being used for any legal purpose by a member of the public.

  24. #24 by Shane Smith on February 13, 2009 - 2:33 pm

    Wow Bob, you are right, those are almost the same odds as getting struck by lightning!

    Holy shit I am gonna get me a gun!

    After all, guns = safe!

    “The United States has more guns than any other country on the planet. We also have the highest murder rate, the most gun deaths per capita and the biggest prison population. ”

    Tell me Bob, if we aren’t safe with 240 million guns in this country, how many more do we need in order to be safe?

    “The national parks belong to all of us Richard, not just you. My firearm doesn’t interfere with your rights, the ban on accessible firearms does interfere with my rights.”

    I am curious Bob, where do you stand on gay rights?

  25. #25 by Bob S. on February 13, 2009 - 2:41 pm

    Shane,

    Nice nonsense about the lightening….of course the odds are rare but that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t put up lightening rods?

    The time to try to put up a lightening rod isn’t during the storm…its having it up and ready for when the storm comes.

    All the guns in the world won’t do you any good if you can’t have them with you and accessible when you need them.

    The requirement to lock up firearms doesn’t make sense. People with CHLs are trusted to walk the streets with firearms, but not the trails in a park?

    Anything in particular about gay rights you want to know? I think they should have the right to carry firearms in national parks just like everyone else.

  26. #26 by Bob S. on February 13, 2009 - 2:48 pm

    Richard,

    What does your email have to do with anything?

    Does it tell you how many crimes, how many violent assaults could have been prevented if the people were armed?

    Since firearms are already allowed in National parks, and the violent crime rate is so low, obviously there isn’t a problem with the law abiding folks using their firearms. Right?

    So what harm does it do for them to be concealed on a person instead of in a car?

  27. #27 by Richard Warnick on February 13, 2009 - 2:51 pm

    Bob S.–

    Just for you, here are some incident reports from the latest weekly e-mail. These are from just one week, February 1 – 7, 2009. LEO = law enforcement officer. LEI = USFS Law Enforcement & Investigations. SD = sheriff’s department. RD = ranger district.

    Coronado NF – On 1/24, LEI and Pima County SD deputies conducted a saturation patrol in the Redington Pass area on the Santa Catalina RD to address illegal shooting and trash. Four people were arrested and multiple citations were issued for violations ranging from resource damage to littering.

    Cleveland NF – On 1/16, LEO’s investigated a report from a Cal Fire crew that three people were carrying a handgun along Skyline Road on the Trabuco RD. The LEO’s found that the handgun was actually a BB-gun that had been painted to look like a handgun. Two people were also in possession of marijuana. Numerous federal and state citations were issued.

    On 1/17, LEO’s made contact with four target shooters in the Orosco Ridge shooting area on the Palomar RD. The shooters were parked beyond the marked target area boundaries and were shooting into the valley. A violation notice was issued for discharging a firearm in an unsafe manner.

    Tahoe NF – On 1/14 and 26, an FPO testified in the second of two trials related to citations that had been issued for discharging a firearm within 150 yards of a developed site. Both defendants admitted to target shooting, but claimed ignorance regarding the rules and the lack of posted signing that prohibited shooting in a campground. The crux of both cases centered on the issue that prohibitions in 36 CFR 261, Subpart A do not need to be posted on signs at every site in listed. The two Magistrates ruled that the fact the information is readily available on-line, through self-initiated contact with the respective Ranger Stations, and general common sense was enough to meet the necessary standard. Both defendants were found guilty and ordered to pay a $435 fine.

    On the Martin Luther King Holiday weekend, LEO’s assisted the Nevada County SD and BLM with patrols in response to a highly publicized 4-WD gathering along Greenhorn Creek. Private landowners in the area had complained about continued trespassing, loud parties, unsafe target shooting, and resource damage associated with the gathering. The officers established information and compliance check points on several routes leading into the area. LEO’s issued numerous citations and made several arrests for violations including possession of narcotics and driving on a suspended license. The SD made several arrests for trespassing on private property.

    Ozark-St. Francis NF’s – On 1/24, an LEO on the Sylamore RD encountered a hunter who reported that his dog had been attacked by a bear. The hunter said he shot the bear to free his dog. Upon further investigation, the LEO determined that the dog had apparently bayed the bear in his den. The bear grabbed the dog and the hunter shot the bear several times in the head. The dog survived but was severely injured. The case was referred to the Arkansas G&FC.

    I’m glad I’m not in Forest Service law enforcement. They run into armed, irresponsible people all the time out in the woods. Like I said, I have never read a report of a citizen using a firearm on public lands for anything legal, much less for protection against a criminal. If that ever happened, it might be headline news. Certainly the NRA would tell the world!

  28. #28 by Bob S. on February 13, 2009 - 3:03 pm

    Richard,

    You can’t have it both ways.

    Can’t claim that violent crime is so rare that people aren’t in danger, then turn around and point out the fact that gun crimes are frequently occurring as a reason to keep guns out of the parks. ‘

    The ruling doesn’t allow everyone to carry in the parks, only those already licensed to carry concealed. The anecdotes you cite could, probably would occur regardless of the change in the rules.

    Now, how about an answer…how many violent crimes have to occur before people are allowed to carry accessible firearms?

    Less then the 4,512 that occurred?

  29. #29 by Richard Warnick on February 13, 2009 - 3:06 pm

    Bob S.–

    Violent crime is rare in the national parks. But armed people are all over the place on the national forests and public lands. That’s the point. Some of them are irresponsible idiots.

    Carrying a firearm only increases your chance of getting involved in a violent, life-threatening incident. So it’s never a good idea unless it’s your job, and you’re well trained.

  30. #30 by Bob S. on February 13, 2009 - 3:14 pm

    Richard,

    You say armed people are all over the place, but there isn’t the crime data to support there is a huge problem. If there was you would be posting it, not anecdotes about people shooting in place too close to camp.

    The armed citizenry, for the most part, isn’t getting into violent confrontations.

    As for as irresponsible people, there are irresponsible people operating ski boats, 4 wheelers, ski-doos, lighting firearms, etc. We can’t keep irresponsible people from doing irresponsible things.

    Have any evidence to support your contention, your opinion that carrying a firearm increase your chance of “getting involved in a violent, life threatening incident”?

    Many who carry concealed are more likely, not less likely to walk away from a confrontation because they know the consequences of getting into that confrontation.

    So, are you saying that carrying a firearm shouldn’t be done unless it is your job to get into “violent, life threatening incidents”?

  31. #31 by Richard Warnick on February 13, 2009 - 3:26 pm

    Bob S.–

    Wait until the summer and hunting season, I’ll post some law enforcement reports that will give even you the heebie-jeebies. Violent confrontations? You bet.

    Carrying a concealed weapon probably won’t help you if you’re the intended victim, because it’s very likely the criminal(s) will have their guns pointed at you before you can do anything. If you’re not the intended victim, trying to come to the rescue of a stranger could be dicey– especially if law enforcement suddenly appears on the scene.

    I don’t have the stats handy, you can ask Cliff. But common sense says it’s smarter to go unarmed if you don’t want to get shot.

  32. #32 by Bob S. on February 13, 2009 - 3:41 pm

    Richard,

    How does that work….armed people won’t hesitate to shoot armed people but will be unwilling to shoot unarmed people?

    You are doubling back on your self here.

    Now, let me get this straight….violent crimes are rare according to you. 1.65 per 100,000 but violent confrontations are common during the summer and hunting season?

    So which is it?

    According to this:

    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.

    That works out a little higher then your stated 1.65 per 100,000. Doesn’t it?

    As far as carrying a concealed weapon not helping, what you are saying doesn’t make sense. Firearm would have to be carried openly….breaking the rules for them to be pointed at me during the confrontation.

    Are you claiming that most of the violent crimes are only committed with firearms?

    Help me out here Richard.

  33. #33 by Leo Brown on February 13, 2009 - 3:55 pm

    Guns aren’t my issue one way or the other, but when a thread starts out with terms like “gun freaks” and “pond scum,” I don’t expect a good discussion. Mori correctly points out that the political movement on this issue may be minimal. President Obama is rightly focusing on preventing a total meltdown of the world economy as his first priority. If he fails in that, then the gun issue make take surprising and unpleasant turns, so I hope he succeeds.

  34. #34 by Richard Warnick on February 13, 2009 - 3:56 pm

    Bob S.–

    I’m guessing you’ve never given any thought to engaging in a shootout? Someone reaching for a gun is going to get shot by the guy who already has his gun out.

    National parks, thanks in part to the long-standing rule that people generally have to keep guns unloaded and out of sight, are safe. Inside a national park, you are much less likely to encounter armed Yahoos. I like that. Let’s not change it.

    You cite statistics for a total of 384 violent crimes, assuming for the sake of argument that all the robbers and attempted rapists were armed. How does that compare to the FBI stat, which you say equates to 4,512 violent crimes in the national parks per year?

    That’s all the help you’re going to get from me today. I’m outta here.

  35. #35 by Federal Farmer on February 13, 2009 - 5:32 pm

    Wow Lumberjack! Didn’t take ya long.

    I’m sure you make the average gun freak proud.

    I’m sure Socrates is throwing up, but that shouldn’t stop anyone from buying you a beer for you bullet-proof argument (no pun intended).

    I’m not surprised by the arrogant snobbery here.

    You see, I love how the “bleeding heart” liberals become rabid elitists at the turn of a dime. These same “liberal” individuals who envision themselves as advocates of the poor and uneducated are more than eager to attack them on account of politics.

    Aside from the diatribe, I realize the post was also an attempt at humor, but I resent your smug contempt for gun-owners.

    Gun freaks will continue to be a part of American culture, because there is this part of the Constitution (2nd Amendment) which gives all Americans the right to bear arms.

  36. #36 by Bob S. on February 13, 2009 - 6:10 pm

    Richard,

    First, you would guess wrong. As someone with a CHL, I have thought seriously about engaging in a gun fight.

    Someone reaching for a gun is going to get shot by the guy who already has his gun out.

    Sorry but that is not always true, search YouTube, Veoh or any of the video channels for the all the robberies gone bad. Usually the bad guy has a firearm out, but the store owner still manages to shoot the bad guy. Just having the firearm isn’t enough, having the training, skill and mindset to use the firearm is just as, if nor more important.

    You are going back on yourself again. Does that make it the third or fourth change.

    You’ve said

    National parks, thanks in part to the long-standing rule that people generally have to keep guns unloaded and out of sight, are safe. Inside a national park, you are much less likely to encounter armed Yahoos. I like that. Let’s not change it.

    and you’ve said

    Wait until the summer and hunting season, I’ll post some law enforcement reports that will give even you the heebie-jeebies. Violent confrontations? You bet.

    So which is it?

    If violent confrontations are rare, someone having a concealed carry license isn’t going to have much need to get into a violent, life-threatening incident

    If violent confrontations aren’t rare and especially if gun toting “rednecks” are common, then shouldn’t a person have a right to have their own firearms accessible?

    How does that compare to the FBI stat, which you say equates to 4,512 violent crimes in the national parks per year?

    I didn’t say that the FBI stat. I used the information you gave, 1.65 /100,000 and the number of visitors to parks, 273 Million something.

    The park service said there were 116 thousand offenses in the parks.

    How about answering the question: How many violent assaults does it take before people are allowed to effectively defend themselves?

    This isn’t about firearms Richard, its about our rights. You have the right to go anywhere unarmed, I simply want the right to carry in National Parks if the state I’m in allows carrying in their parks.

    Concealed Carry License Holders are, statistically not the problem. So why shouldn’t we be allowed to exercise our rights. Exercising our rights does not interfere with you exercising your rights.

  37. #37 by Ken Bingham on February 13, 2009 - 6:48 pm

    That has to be one of the worst Photoshop jobs I have ever seen. Please don’t try this at home.

  38. #38 by Uncle Rico on February 13, 2009 - 7:28 pm

    Federal Farmer is right that the left does seem to get its undies in a bit of a bunch over guns. But make no mistake, the left has no monopoloy over underwear climbing up the butt crack. The right gets its garments regularly bunched-up over a whole host of issues as well (can you say Gay Marriage FF?). So save the lecture.

    You may not like guns, but this is America. You want one, you can have one. Deal with it.

    You may not like abortion, but this is America. You want one, you can have one. Deal with it.

    You may not like the fact that the cops need a warrant based upon probable cause to conduct a search. Too frickin’ bad. If they want to conduct the search, they need a warrant. Deal with that.

    You may not like sharing the front of the bus, the water fountain, or the classroom with Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc. That’s really too frickin’ bad. Separate but equal is so passe’ (and unconstitutional). So deal with that, biggots.

    And gays have the right to the same “priviliges and immunities” and “equal protection” as straights. So you can try to frame the issue any way you want, but deal with that h8ers.

    Have I failed to offend anybody? If so, I apologize for the oversight.

    – Rico

  39. #39 by Cliff on February 13, 2009 - 9:08 pm

    Ken?

    That is NOT a Photoshop job my lover.

    What made you think it was?

  40. #40 by Tim Carter on February 13, 2009 - 10:16 pm

    Yes, Fed is right. Gun ownership is Constitutional. You can’t pick and choose. If wiretapping offends you, so should reversing gun rights.

  41. #41 by Cliff on February 13, 2009 - 11:14 pm

    No Tim,

    Read it (I assume for the first time) and weep:

    “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Thats a conditional right based on the dependent phrase, you know, the first part about the Militia.

    Do you belong to a Militia?

    When we take away your gun, we won’t be stripping you of a right. At least not one thats in the Constitution.

    In the meantime, we DO have a right to privacy.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  42. #42 by Tim Carter on February 13, 2009 - 11:45 pm

    Cliff, nice spin. You remind me of this guy:

  43. #43 by Tim Carter on February 13, 2009 - 11:52 pm

    Oh, yeah, I don’t own a gun because that is my CHOICE.

  44. #44 by Tim Carter on February 14, 2009 - 12:06 am

    the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

  45. #45 by Cliff on February 14, 2009 - 1:08 am

    a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

  46. #46 by jdberger on February 14, 2009 - 2:14 am

    The Supreme Court disagrees with you, Cliff.

    Also, what’s all the huff about a “last minute rule”? What makes a ruling “last minute”? A year of public comments? First the Department asks for a comment period, and are swamped with replies. Then, because they felt that they didn’t get enough comments AGAINST the measure, they extend comments….and still end up with the scale tipped toward modernizing the rules.

    The “Last minute” crap is just that.

    As as getting “spanked” in the elections…well, it’s easy to win if you only back sure winners.

    From Howard Nemerov

    The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence would have us believe that the 2008 election was proof that the American people have mandated the anti-self-defense policies promoted by Brady and their endorsed candidates. However, closer examination shows that Brady manufactured their election “success” by:
    · Endorsing House candidates primarily in states with historical predispositions to support the Brady agenda,
    · Endorsing a larger percentage of House candidates who ran in uncontested elections,
    · Using a 2001 dataset in an attempt to prove its relevance to a 2008 event, and
    · Endorsing Democrats almost exclusively and riding the pro-Democrat victory wave as the American people voted against the possibility of continuing Republican policies of the last 8 years.

    So…nope. Sorry, Cliffy.

  47. #47 by Tim Carter on February 14, 2009 - 7:16 am

    I’ve seen Cliffs’ reaction to this in the past:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGhcECnWRGM

    “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    I guess it is true. Cliff is the only one allowed to mealy-mouth the Constitution on this blog.

  48. #48 by Uncle Rico on February 14, 2009 - 7:37 am

    Has anyone ever seen Cliff and Robert Bork in the same place at the same time?

    Things that make you go “hmmm….”

    (BTW, I’m just bustin’ your hump a bit Cliff. Don’t get all spazzy on me.)

  49. #49 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2009 - 9:27 am

    Bob S.–

    Let me explain again, since you still didn’t get my point after several repetitions. There are national parks, and then there are national forests and public lands that are not in the National Park System. Where the rules allow people to run around with loaded guns, that’s where stupidity reigns.

    When I worked for the BLM, I got to patch up the bullet holes in the road signs. The handiwork of your Second Amendment buddies.

  50. #50 by jdberger on February 14, 2009 - 10:56 am

    Richard, a gun is a tool.

    The rule change acknowledges the fact that the vast majority of States have “shall issue” concealed carry laws (unlike when the original law was enacted). Current regulations fail to account for the significant change in state laws since 1984. 48 states now have laws that permit laws that permit carrying and 40 have strong Right-to-Carry laws. Federal regulations should recognize the change in state laws and follow their lead.

    The Department of the Interior simply decided that people who are deemed trustworthy enough to carry a gun concealed in public within their own States are trustworthy enough to carry concealed in a National Park. The new rules should provide uniformity across all federal lands, eliminating the patchwork of laws that create confusion for gun owners

    One of the most basic rights we as lawful citizens enjoy is the right to defend our families and ourselves. The right to self-defense should not end simply because someone crosses an invisible boundary line and enters a national park or wildlife refuge.

    Honestly, Richard, if you have a problem with people carrying concealed handguns, you are living in the wrong State. As of March 2008, there were more than 112,000 concealed permits issued in the Utah. There must be shootouts over parking spaces and the last pack of gum every day, no? Blood in the streets? Wild Wild West? Dodge City?

    And Larry’s sign is probably full-o-bullet holes, isn’t it?

    Your irrational fears, Richard, are just that.

  51. #51 by Cliff on February 14, 2009 - 11:11 am

    And therein lies the hypocrisy of the gun lobby argument.

    A. The fact that Larry’s sign is not full of holes has nothing to do with concealed carry in Utah.

    2. Based on empirical evidence the argument FOR carrying a concealed weapon is irrational. 99.9% of concealed weapon have NEVER been used to defend shit.

    The argument that concealed weapons are a deterrent has ZERO scientific basis but instead depends upon ‘irrational fears’.

  52. #52 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2009 - 11:29 am

    jd–

    A firearm is not a “tool.” It’s a deadly weapon. Of course, any red-blooded American idiot can use a loaded pistol to drive tent stakes, they just can’t do it in a national park. That rule has been in effect since the 1930s, and there have been no reports of “confusion.”

    If you have an irrational fear of taking your family to a national park, that’s a personal phobia and you ought to talk to a psychologist. We’ve established that the national parks are statistically the safest places in America. The rest of the federal lands are wide open to Yosemite Sam types shooting wildly in all directions, that ought to be enough don’t you think?

  53. #53 by jdberger on February 14, 2009 - 11:35 am

    You have it backwards, Cliff.

    To restrict or infringe upon my Constitutional Right, you need to show empirical evidence that concealed weapons (or even gun ownership in general) is to dangerous.

    The fact that Larry’s sign isn’t full of holes, in a State where around 1 in every 25 people has a concealed carry permit and significant portion of the population disagrees with that sign, speaks volumes, Cliff.

    Gun owners aren’t the super-volatile, whip out their guns and start blasting folks you pretend they are. You are projecting, again.

    You did get rid of those guns, didn’t you?

    Finally, re-read your intial post regarding Alan Korwin, where Bob and I gave you a right-stiff schooling on empirical evidence regarding CCW and gun ownership. I have a feeling that you are “misremembering” things. But I understand, it must have been traumatic for you.

  54. #54 by Tim Carter on February 14, 2009 - 12:12 pm

    Richard, with all respect: “A firearm is not a “tool.” It’s a deadly weapon”

    Lots of things are deadly weapons, cars, knives, louieville sluggers, candlesticks, boxcutters.

  55. #55 by Ken Bingham on February 14, 2009 - 12:37 pm

    If there is one thing that could spark a civil war in this country is for the Federal government to take away our 2nd amendment rights.

  56. #56 by Ken Bingham on February 14, 2009 - 12:41 pm

    Any attempt to do so will be seen as an act of TREASON.

  57. #57 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2009 - 1:02 pm

    What have we learned?

    (1) “Gun owners aren’t the super-volatile, whip out their guns and start blasting folks you pretend they are.”

    (2) Gun owners are prepared to fight a civil war against the federal government over a relatively trivial issue of whether loaded guns can be carried inside national parks.

  58. #58 by Cliff on February 14, 2009 - 1:14 pm

    Not one pro-gun freak has EVER attempted to explain the first part of the second amendment.

    They are so afraid of that DEPENDENT clause, they don’t even quote it.

    Imagine that trying to argue a right in which only they refuse to quote the entire sentence.

    Hmmm.

  59. #59 by Uncle Rico on February 14, 2009 - 1:42 pm

    Although I’ve never quite thought of myself as a “pro-gun freak,” I’ll take a shot at it Cliff (so to speak).

    From my vantage point, the introductory clause does not establish a condition precedent to gun ownership (it certainly doesn’t use that terminology) as much as it states the draters’ rationale for providing the right to gun ownership. And the rationale stated is not necessarily the exclusive rationale. In other words, the right to bear arms was assured for purposes of a well regulated militia, but not exclusively for that purpose as firearms were in common use for other purposes at the time the Second Amendment was drafted (i.e., hunting, self defense, etc.).

    I don’t expect that argument will win you over to my way of thinking, but it has as much legitimacy IMO as the holding in, and rationale for, Griswald v. Connecticut and its progeny (a court opinion with which I agree).

    -Rico

  60. #60 by Bob S. on February 14, 2009 - 2:17 pm

    Cliff,

    Leaving aside the derogatory “gun freak” you missed information posted on your own site, in response to your own post.

    From Tomare

    Tomare Utsu Zo Says:
    April 15th, 2008 at 8:03 pm

    The right to bear arms is actually in our Constitution twice. First, is the 2nd which does make mention of the militia. That mention of the militia is a reference to every American citizen. It was understood that the militia consisted of the great body of the people. Samuel Adams said, “The Militia is composed of free Citizens.” Richard Henry Lee, who is recognized as being the most influential writer with regards the Bill of Rights, wrote “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in the greater measure unnecessary … The constitution ought to secure a genuine [militia] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include … all men capable of bearing arms”. And, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them”. Also, the right to keep and bear arms can’t be only tied to the militia (which even if it had been wouldn’t matter because the militia is every Citizen) but the text of the 2nd includes the words “the people” which, in the body of the Bill of Rights, has never been construed to mean anything other then individuals.


    Of course I touched on this before also.
    and here

    Want to go through the whole argument?

    How about simply looking at what the people who wrote the Constitution thought, the people around at the time it was written, the people that just fought a war for our freedom:

    George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott,
    Debates, 425-426)

    Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

    James Madison: “A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789, emphasis added.

    IMPORTANT NOTE: Back in the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped.” It does NOT refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “STANDING Army” to describe a professional army. THEREFORE, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. Federal control over the militia comes from other parts of the Constitution, but not from the second amendment. (my personal opinion)

    Patrick Henry: “The people have a right to keep and bear arms.” (Elliott, Debates at 185)

    Alexander Hamilton: “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” (Federalist Paper #29)

    “Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped.” (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}” There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery). (Id)

    Let me know if you want to continue….be more then happy to cover all this again. I’m sure there are some people new to the board that might not have reviewed this information.

    Enjoy using your site to educate folks about their rights…especially the right to keep and bear arms.

  61. #61 by cav on February 14, 2009 - 2:32 pm

    I consider myself as part of the properly unregulated militia and ain’t no GW or anyone else gonna tell me any different.

    But in an age of mutally assured nuclear destruction and environmental waywardness, I wonder if it makes much difference.

    Still, I reserve the right to Lock and Load if’n I so much as see a hippy on my lawn.

    Btw, BobS, Good comment, as always. Sanity is the key element here.

  62. #62 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2009 - 3:48 pm

    Of course, the concept of a militia consisting of the whole people was rendered obsolete when the United States decided to establish a permanent professional army in 1791. Today’s militia is the National Guard.

    I know our right-wing Supreme Court has found in favor of an individual right to bear arms, but then they also decided that George W. Bush won the 2000 election.

  63. #63 by Bob S. on February 14, 2009 - 4:26 pm

    Richard,

    Wrong, the concept of a militia wasn’t rendered obsolete at all. Several times in recent history it has proven necessary, e.g. the Rodney King riots.

    Now if today’s militia is the National Guard, tell me how something completely controlled, armed, and paid by the Federal government is supposed to be a check on said Federal government.

    Read Alexander Hamilton’s words again:

    Alexander Hamilton: “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” (Federalist Paper #29)

    Richard, want to get your arguments straight. In 1939, the Miller decision stated that any weapon useful for militia service was still an acceptable weapon for individuals to own. The SCOTUS wrongly stated the sawed off shotgun was unrelated to Militia use.

    The SCOTUS could have ruled since Miller wasn’t part of the National Guard (today’s militia in your view), Miller didn’t have a right to keep and bear arms but they didn’t state that, did they?

    Lastly, if the concept of a militia was rendered obsolete, why is it still a part of the U.S. Code

    * United States Code
    o TITLE 10 – ARMED FORCES
    + SUBTITLE A – GENERAL MILITARY LAW
    # PART I – ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
    * CHAPTER 13 – THE MILITIA

    U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
    Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
    males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
    declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
    and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
    National Guard.

    (b) The classes of the militia are –
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
    and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
    the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
    Naval Militia.

    Let me explain again, since you still didn’t get my point after several repetitions. There are national parks, and then there are national forests and public lands that are not in the National Park System. Where the rules allow people to run around with loaded guns, that’s where stupidity reigns

    Richard I missed this post earlier….so let’s deal with it now.

    You claimed there were many violent confrontations….now are you claiming those violent confrontations are in national forests and public lands?

    Lands were people are already allowed to carry concealed? So how does changing the rules in the National Parks effect that?

    If there isn’t a lot of violent confrontation in National Parks, where people are allowed to have firearms anyways, doesn’t that show the firearms aren’t a problem?
    All that changes is allowing them to be on the person instead of in a car.

  64. #64 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2009 - 4:54 pm

    Bob S.–

    Of course, National Guard units are normally controlled by state governors, not by the federal government. But I’m sure you knew that. You’re just playing games as usual.

    Speaking of game-playing, you want to pretend that it’s somehow a contradiction to draw a contrast between the dumb things gun-toting rednecks do on public lands outside the national parks, and the relatively low crime rate inside national parks– where the dangerous play toys have to be put away. But it’s not a contradiction. It’s a rational argument. Try to keep up.

  65. #65 by jdberger on February 14, 2009 - 4:57 pm

    I’ve always been a big fan of the argument that maintains that the Second Amendment only applies to the States and the National Guard.

    You do realize, Richard, that your definition of the Second Amendment would make the National Guard unconstitutional.

    Those who maintain that argument obviously interpret “people” to mean “States” which is unusual since the other Amendments are pretty specific in their language.

  66. #66 by Bob S. on February 14, 2009 - 4:58 pm

    Richard,

    You ability to twist the obvious is only surpassed by Cliff.

    # Ken Bingham Says:
    February 14th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    If there is one thing that could spark a civil war in this country is for the Federal government to take away our 2nd amendment rights.
    # Ken Bingham Says:
    February 14th, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    Any attempt to do so will be seen as an act of TREASON.

    Note carefully that Ken isn’t talking about taking away our rights to carry in National Parks….because we lost that right decades ago and we didn’t fight a civil war then.

    # Richard Warnick Says:
    February 14th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

    What have we learned?

    (1) “Gun owners aren’t the super-volatile, whip out their guns and start blasting folks you pretend they are.”

    (2) Gun owners are prepared to fight a civil war against the federal government over a relatively trivial issue of whether loaded guns can be carried inside national parks.

    # 1 is obvious for those that want to see it. All the evidence, statistics, crime reports, anecdotes, everything shows that gun owners aren’t the super-volatile, whip out their guns and start blasting folks you pretend they are to use JD’s words.

    There are over 270,000,000 firearms. with less then 500,000 firearm related crimes . Even assuming that each crime involves a different firearm, that means only 0.18% of the firearms are used in crimes each year.

    The fact that violent confrontations in National Parks isn’t a problem also shows that firearms aren’t a problem. As you state, the firearms are already allowed in the parks. So people aren’t getting them out and using them to force people to turn down their radios or stop making noise.

    Cliff, if concealed carry weapons aren’t being used to defend anything, and evidence show that concealed carry holders aren’t committing vast numbers of crime (actually they are statistically among the most law abiding); what harm does it create to let people carry?

  67. #67 by Cliff on February 14, 2009 - 5:08 pm

    National Guard is technically a State Militia controlled by State Governors last time I heard.

    If your gun is protected under this amendment, why do you not use them when you train or deploy with your National Guard?

    The 2nd amendment was designed to insure the States they would, you know, be able to whip together a standing militia.

    It was NOT designed to give red-neck and paranoid, spineless gun-freaks the right to keep loaded assault weapons to scare the shit out of anyone they think is threatening their dog.

  68. #68 by jdberger on February 14, 2009 - 5:43 pm

    Richard, how, exactly, do you get this

    Richard Warnick Says:

    (2) Gun owners are prepared to fight a civil war against the federal government over a relatively trivial issue of whether loaded guns can be carried inside national parks.

    From this?

    Ken Bingham Says:

    If there is one thing that could spark a civil war in this country is for the Federal government to take away our 2nd amendment rights.

    Ken Bingham Says:

    Are you deliberatly trying to misconstrue what Ken says?

  69. #69 by jdberger on February 14, 2009 - 5:52 pm

    Cliff, this is from an earlier post that you ignored because it skewered your “National Guard” argument. I’ll repost it in full. Please read it and think about the potential consequences of your argument.

    … let’s assume, arguendo that the Milita really is the current National Guard. If so, then how does that square with the Federal Government’s power to Nationalize the National Guard?

    Under the current system, National Guard officers have dual status: They are members of both the State Guard and the federal armed forces. They are armed, paid, and trained by the federal government. They can be called out at will by the federal government, and such call-outs cannot be resisted, in any meaningful fashion, by their states. They are subject to federal military discipline on the same basis as members of the National government’s armed forces, and they are required to swear an oath of loyalty to the United States government, as well as to their states.

    This de facto federal control sure makes it difficult to argue that the National Guard is capable of carrying out the militia’s role, central to the states’ right interpretation (and as you’ve suggested above), of serving as a counterweight to the power of the federal standing army.

    If the Second Amendment applies only to States doesn’t the Amendment give the States the power to invalidate Federal gun laws? Couldn’t the State of Nevada decide that the NFA was null and void? Couldn’t it start importing machine guns and tanks and airplanes and PT boats to aid in it’s defense against the Federal Government or against other States? Doesn’t it render the National Guard unconstitutional as currently constituted?

  70. #70 by marshall on February 14, 2009 - 8:21 pm

    If Democrats even try to touch gun control they can watch their gains in the west go up in smoke.

  71. #71 by Richard Warnick on February 15, 2009 - 8:32 am

    All I want is a reversal of Bush’s last-minute rule change for the national parks. Threats of armed insurrection, arguments about the Second Amendment, etc. are just commentary. Since the 1930s, in non-hunting units of the National Park System, firearms had to be kept unloaded and stowed away. No reasonable person has ever complained about this well-understood rule.

  72. #72 by Cliff on February 15, 2009 - 8:38 am

    I’m Sorry JD, I can respond to this kind of disjointed logic. It is so far from the legal debate and interpretation. We would be wasting each others time.

    Your nascent characterization of the Nat’l guard does not impact the intent of 2a

  73. #73 by Moribund Republic on February 15, 2009 - 10:52 am

    Shane to use a source you can live with, NPR just this morning (Sun Feb. 15) stated that the murder rate in the nation of Venezuela is 10 times that of the United States, and that lawlessness and kidnapping know few equals on Earth.

    Just pointing out your error. We are not the murder capital of the world. Not even close.

  74. #74 by Moribund Republic on February 15, 2009 - 10:57 am

    and Cliff, once again the simple hopes of the dependent clause has little to say now that the personal right has been established by Supreme Court review. Not to mention the wording of the 2nd applied to the context of history of personal firearms ownership and absolute rights to bear arms, when the Bill of Rights was written.

    Yes Shane, that is the per capita murder rate.

  75. #75 by jdberger on February 15, 2009 - 11:05 am

    Richard,

    1) a year for public commentary is not a “last minute rule change”. You’re being dishonest.
    2) you completely distorted Bingham’s statement. You’re being dishonest.

    Cliff,

    You can’t respond to my question because it’s beyond your capabilities or knowledge. Be honest. You don’t understand the Second Amendment or any of it’s scholarship at all.

  76. #76 by Bob S. on February 15, 2009 - 11:41 am

    Richard,

    Since the 1930s, in non-hunting units of the National Park System, firearms had to be kept unloaded and stowed away

    Just realized that if you don’t have a problem with firearms in the parks, then it must be the people who would be allowed to carry them, right?

    So, what is it about the statistically law abiding concealed carry holders that endangers such pant soiling hysteria ?

  77. #77 by Richard Warnick on February 15, 2009 - 12:31 pm

    jd–

    This is for you: Bush Administration’s Haste Could Doom New Gun Rules In National Parks

    Bob S.–

    I have no problem with unloaded, stowed firearms in the national parks. Neither does anyone else except a tiny minority of gun fanatics. The “pant soiling hysteria” seems to be coming from people who have stated here that they are afraid to visit a national park without a loaded gun at the ready!

  78. #78 by Bob S. on February 15, 2009 - 1:10 pm

    Richard,

    There is a difference between wanting to carry, wanting to exercise our rights to carry and the fear exhibited by the anti-gunners. I and I can’t find anyone else on this site that said they would be afraid to go to the national parks without carrying.

    Would you want to go a national park without exercising the right to free speech or the right against unreasonable search and seizure?

    Why should we have to give up our rights….because you and others are afraid?

    Let’s look at how you describe the people who want to exercise their rights:

    …. no gun-toting would-be vigilantes are needed.

    Take your deadly play toys somewhere else please.

    Where, pray tell, can I camp where I can be sure there are no gun-toting rednecks? Where?

    My safety and peace of mind is much more important to me. How about you and your gun-toting buddies stay out of MY national parks if you don’t like the rules?

    Carrying a firearm only increases your chance of getting involved in a violent, life-threatening incident. So it’s never a good idea unless it’s your job, and you’re well trained.

    Over and over again, the hysteria shows up in your phrasing and word choices. On the other hand what doesn’t show up in anything is any statistical evidence that concealed carry holders are a problem.

    That is all the rule change does, allows concealed carry holders the right to carry in the parks just like they can outside the park.

  79. #79 by jdberger on February 15, 2009 - 1:12 pm

    Richard – I’ve been following the projected rule changes for over a year. Your article is one sided, only cites Helmke and the rest of the Bradys. Nice try, though.

  80. #80 by Federal Farmer on February 15, 2009 - 1:26 pm

    Federal Farmer is right that the left does seem to get its undies in a bit of a bunch over guns. But make no mistake, the left has no monopoloy over underwear climbing up the butt crack. The right gets its garments regularly bunched-up over a whole host of issues as well (can you say Gay Marriage FF?). So save the lecture.

    You may not like guns, but this is America. You want one, you can have one. Deal with it.

    You may not like abortion, but this is America. You want one, you can have one. Deal with it.

    You may not like the fact that the cops need a warrant based upon probable cause to conduct a search. Too frickin’ bad. If they want to conduct the search, they need a warrant. Deal with that.

    You may not like sharing the front of the bus, the water fountain, or the classroom with Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc. That’s really too frickin’ bad. Separate but equal is so passe’ (and unconstitutional). So deal with that, biggots.

    And gays have the right to the same “priviliges and immunities” and “equal protection” as straights. So you can try to frame the issue any way you want, but deal with that h8ers.

    Have I failed to offend anybody? If so, I apologize for the oversight.

    Rico, I am simply pointing out the fact that as much as the Left tries to portray themselves as champions of the common-man, they are certainly quick to play the elitist when it comes to convenient social issues.

    That is the problem with many Democrats in Utah. The party is polluted by the wine-and-cheese “intellectuals” who cannot connect to the population of their state because these elitists despise everything about the majority of Utahns. I used to vote Democratic in this state until I became better acquainted with some of the leadership in my area, and after becoming familiar with their blatant anti-Mormonism and hateful snobbery, I have rarely felt inclined to support such a party.

    It is funny that Cliff is willing to create “rights” out of thin air (due process rights for enemy combatants), yet when the “right to bear arms” is explicitly defined by the Constitution and the Supreme Court, Cliff would rather offer his own version.

    If you are stuck on the “militia” argument, you must concede that you can’t create nor maintain a well-regulated militia without an armed population. That is the difference between a militia and standing army.

    And nice job, jdberger, it’s good to see someone else who is willing to stand up to the dishonesty of Cliff and Warnick, who would rather discredit their opposition than disprove their points… there are too many “Uncle Ricos” who would rather play the role of a groupie than challenge Cliff.

  81. #81 by jdberger on February 15, 2009 - 4:32 pm

    A quote from a friend –

    “The problem with Gun Rights is that the Left doesn’t like Guns and the Right doesn’t respect Rights.”

    Guns aren’t a Left/Right issue. They are a Rights issue.

  82. #82 by Cliff on February 15, 2009 - 6:31 pm

    Federal Farmer,

    Say that “Cliff is willing to create “rights” out of thin air” does not make it true. In fact is says nothing.

    Try again.

  83. #83 by Richard Warnick on February 15, 2009 - 8:24 pm

    Bob S. wrote:

    I can’t find anyone else on this site that said they would be afraid to go to the national parks without carrying.

    Bob S. also wrote:

    Just because you don’t want to take what I consider sensible precautions doesn’t give you the right to stop me from taking those precautions.

    My family, myself at stake….I want to do everything I can to reduce the risk.

    In this discussion, I have presented solid evidence:

    (1) That national parks are among the safest places in America, according to FBI statistics on violent crimes.

    (2) That gun nuts are an ever-present law enforcement problem on national forests, according to the weekly Forest Service incident report.

    No one has offered any evidence at all that there is a need to change a national park rule that has been in effect for around 70 years. A rule that does not impinge on the Second Amendment.

    If you truly believe that having a loaded firearm ready at all times is more important than peacefully enjoying nature, then national parks are not for you. Go somewhere else.

  84. #84 by jdberger on February 15, 2009 - 8:36 pm

    Neither have you presented any evidence to have a haphazard patchwork of laws, Richard.

    If you are going to prohibit an otherwise normal activity, you better damn well have a good reason. You haven’t offered one.

    You did completely distort what Bingham said, though.

    Oh wait…what’s this?

    “Park rangers are the most assaulted federal officers,” Jordan said. “Urban police officers had a lot more crime to deal with, but we have less staff.”

    It used to be that being a ranger in Washington state’s national parks and forests meant guiding people through the great outdoors and serving as caretaker to plants and wildlife. But as cities and suburbs rapidly encroach upon wilderness areas, drugs and violence have crept into the outdoors.

    Whether it’s meth labs hidden amid lush forests or car prowls at trailheads, park rangers and forest officers are seeing an increasing amount of criminal behavior.

    While neither the U.S. Forest Service nor the National Park Service keeps precise statistics about crime on federally protected lands, officers and rangers in Washington say that crime appears to be on the rise in the backcountry.

  85. #85 by Richard Warnick on February 15, 2009 - 8:44 pm

    jd–

    Here’s your sign:

    Any questions? Are you baffled by the “haphazard patchwork of laws”? What part of “NO HUNTING OR SHOOTING” did you not understand? Sooo confusing…

    You are correct, serious criminals and other irresponsible armed individuals are a problem in the backcountry. As I explained above, citing one week’s gun incidents on the national forests. Sadly for the U.S. Forest Service, most public lands are open to hunting. That makes it impossible to have a rule like the national park rule.

  86. #86 by cav on February 15, 2009 - 8:51 pm

    I’m surprized the sign isn’t shot full of holes. Must be a new installation.

  87. #87 by jdberger on February 15, 2009 - 9:43 pm

    All national park land is clearly marked at its boundary, right, Richard?

    With surveyors tape or something?

    Well maintained boundaries, righto?

    And if “serious criminals and other irresponsible armed individuals are a problem in the backcountry” doesn’t that shoot holes in your argument that “That national parks are among the safest places in America, according to FBI statistics on violent crimes.” NB: “neither the U.S. Forest Service nor the National Park Service keeps precise statistics about crime on federally protected lands” so I’m not entirely sure what “empirical evidence” you’re citing, Richard.

    Nevertheless…the point is moot. The rule has been changed. Enjoy trying to change it back, Ranger Rick.

  88. #88 by Uncle Rico on February 16, 2009 - 7:09 am

    Coming to a state near you: insuring your Second Amendment rights.

    By force.

  89. #89 by Richard Warnick on February 16, 2009 - 8:10 am

    jd–

    The Bush guns in national parks rule is illegal, because they never did any NEPA analysis. Two lawsuits have been filed to stop it. The National Parks Conservation Association and Coalition of National Park Service Retirees are both fighting the rule.

  90. #90 by Bob S. on February 16, 2009 - 11:23 am

    Richard,

    You got me curious about exactly what the NEPA required. I a little skeptical that it says what the Brady Campaign is claiming.

    Let’s make sure we are clear on the change…
    firearms were already allowed in National Parks, correct?
    Prior to the rule change, the firearms were required to be locked away, correct?
    According to the rule change, only the location of the firearms is being changed, correct?

    So, are you claiming that moving firearms from a car to someone’s hip is creating an environmental impact?

    Title I of NEPA contains a Declaration of National Environmental Policy which requires the federal government to use all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony. Section 102 requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental considerations in their planning and decision-making through a systematic interdisciplinary approach. Specifically, all federal agencies are to prepare detailed statements assessing the environmental impact of and alternatives to major federal actions significantly affecting the environment. These statements are commonly referred to as environmental impact statements (EISs). Section 102 also requires federal agencies to lend appropriate support to initiatives and programs designed to anticipate and prevent a decline in the quality of mankind’s world environment.

    Now, I haven’t reviewed the exact wording of the law, but I wonder if the Bush Administration didn’t follow the law

    Summarizing the NEPA
    NEPA process consists of an evaluation of the environmental effects of a federal undertaking including its alternatives.  
    There are three levels of analysis depending on whether or not an undertaking could significantly affect the environment.  
    These three levels include: 1.
    Categorical exclusion determination; 2. Preparation of an environmental assessment/finding of no significant impact (EA/FONSI); and 3. preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).

    Now, let’s see what those filing the lawsuit says:

    Defendants have declared themselves excused from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and have declared with certainty — albeit without any analysis or data upon which to make such a conclusion — that the new regulations could not possibly have significant environmental impacts on the national parks,” said the lawsuit.

    Doesn’t that meet the requirements?

    Or is there another reason why the suit was filed?

    “In promulgating the new regulations, defendants have downplayed the overwhelming opposition to their change in long-standing policy, including the opposition of seven former directors of [the National Park Service], and have given short shrift to the numerous, substantive concerns raised by those who commented on the regulation.

    Perhaps someone – the anti-gun crowd perhaps– got their knickers in a twist because the Bush Administration restored rights to law abiding folks?

    Really Richard, isn’t it a pretty outrageous stretch to say that allowing people to move firearms from the trunks of their cars to their hips is going to create a significant impact to the environment?

    Maybe it will on the other hand…giving all the pant soiling hysteria going on now; if people start seeing ‘scary firearms’ the sewage systems might not be able to keep up. Then again maybe most people are more mature then the anti-gun crowd.

  91. #91 by Richard Warnick on February 16, 2009 - 11:37 am

    Bob S.–

    The main purpose of the national park gun regulations is to prevent poaching of wildlife in areas where hunting is prohibited. Obviously, there will be a serious environmental impact if the efforts to prevent national park visitors from shooting the animals are hampered in any way.

    The new Bush rule, as the National Park Service informed the past administration to no avail, is a major federal action as defined by NEPA. The lack of an environmental assessment or an EIS makes the rule illegal.

  92. #92 by Bob S. on February 16, 2009 - 12:01 pm

    Can you show evidence that it is a major federal action as defined by the NEPA?

    And please don’t show me the lawsuit by the Brady campaign.

    You are also obscuring the point.

    Does the prior rule allow firearms to be brought into national parks? Yes or No.

    Let’s look at what was written up for the rule change,

    Issue 8: Visitors who carry a concealed firearm permitted under state law are likely to use their handguns to shoot or injure wildlife.

    Response 8: The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service and a number of state parks and refuges currently authorize the possession of concealed firearms consistent with the laws of the state in which they are located. The available data does not suggest that visitors to these lands misuse their legally permitted firearms for poaching or illegal shooting, or that there is additional danger posed to the public from lawfully carried concealed firearms. See, e.g., National Research Council, Committee on Law and Justice, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004), p.6; Dodenhoff, David, Concealed Carry Legislation: An Examination of the Facts, Wisconsin Public Policy Research Institute (2006), p. 5; see also, Jeffrey Snyder, Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun (October 1997); Kopel, David, et al., Policy Review No. 78 (July & August 1996).

    Looks like the evidence was reviewed and it was determined that what you state isn’t true.

    Issue 9: The rule will inhibit the ability of park rangers to halt poaching because brandishing a firearm would no longer be probable cause to search for evidence of wildlife parts.

    Response 9: We disagree. The final rule continues to maintain existing prohibitions on poaching, unauthorized target shooting, and other illegal uses of firearms, including laws against brandishing a firearm in public. As with any other law or regulation, we expect visitors to obey those requirements. Individuals who break the law by using illegally their concealed firearms will be subjected to arrest and/or prosecution

    Obviously, there will be a serious environmental impact if the efforts to prevent national park visitors from shooting the animals are hampered in any way.

    Again Richard it certainly appears that you are saying concealed carry holders are going to be breaking the law….do you have any evidence to prove that is the case?

    You’ve claimed that violence wasn’t a problem in National Parks — that shows firearms aren’t a problem.

    You’ve claimed that violence is a problem in National Forests and other lands– but this rule change doesn’t affect that in any manner.

    You’ve claimed concealed carry holders will initiate or not back away from violent confrontations– evidence doesn’t show that to be the case.

    You’ve claimed that there isn’t an individual right to keep and bear arms (or was that Cliff?) – that right pre-exists the Constitution, was protected by the Constitution and confirmed by the SCOTUS in Heller v. D.C.

    It was claimed that people have to belong to a militia in order to have firearms — that has also been shown to be wrong….again see Heller v. D.C. and the Miller Decision.

    You claim the Bush Administration didn’t follow the law, but look at what I found in the rule change:

    National Environmental Policy Act
    The Department has analyzed the final rule under NEPA and determined that the action is subject to a categorical exclusion under applicable regulations.
    See 43 CFR 46.210.
    First, the rulemaking is in the nature of a legal change to existing rules that will not have any actual effects on the environment. And second, the Department has determined that no ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ exist which would prevent the proposed action from being classified as categorically excluded. Id. This decision is fully described in our decision document dated November 18, 2008, which is available to the public at http://www.doi.gov/.

    Every argument put forward has been shown to be false.

  93. #93 by Cliff on February 16, 2009 - 12:12 pm

    What about my right? Don’t I have the right to be able to enjoy my National Parks GUN FREE?

    If I’m willing to take the chance that I may not be able to protect myself and family from an armed assault with a gun, do I not have the right to take the risk?

    The benefit to me is that my stress level is lower if I believe there aren’t a bunch of loaded weapons around.

    …especially in that noisy camp over yonder where a bunch of yahoos are getting hammered every night.

    Its not like you have thick walls around you in a National Park.

    What about my right to be in gun-free spaces that are paid for with my tax dollars?

  94. #94 by Bob S. on February 16, 2009 - 12:25 pm

    Cliff,

    Your right still exists, you don’t have to carry a firearm if you don’t want to.

    Don’t I have a right to be able to enjoy my National Parks JERKS FREE, nope You, Richard and the other gun banners are allowed in also.

    If I’m willing to take the chance that I may not be able to protect myself and family from an armed assault with a gun, do I not have the right to take the risk?

    You absolutely have that right…what you don’t have is the right to tell me that I have to take that risk. You have no right to control my choices. That is what this is about…controlling people’s choices.

    The benefit to me is that my stress level is lower if I believe there aren’t a bunch of loaded weapons around.

    Show me an authorizing document or law for this country that says you have a right to a stress free life or even a lower level of stress.

    …especially in that noisy camp over yonder where a bunch of yahoos are getting hammered every night.

    Richard has pointed out, often, that crime isn’t a problem. If you are scared by the people in the other camp, you have every right to call the park authorities, you can talk to them yourself (that is what grown ups do, by the way) or you can leave.

    You, again, don’t have the right to tell me to disarm so your “stress level” doesn’t rise.
    (Is stress level the new code for “pant shitting hysteria”?)

    What about my right to be in gun-free spaces that are paid for with my tax dollars?

    Vote and elect people that will restrict the rights of people to carry in the state parks. The Federal law says that National Parks will follow the laws of the states for concealed carry.

    Also, care to show me any authorizing document that says you have a right to prevent other people from exercising their rights in a shared environment?

  95. #95 by Cliff on February 16, 2009 - 12:49 pm

    There’s a big diff between a jerk and a jerk with a loaded gun.

    And therein lies the rub. You and I both know BOB, that the kind of people who feel the need to carry a loaded human killer into a National Park are not necessarily the smartest folks America has to offer.

    I feel instinctively, in my gut, that The true spirit of America is would grant me the right to some spaces free of spineless rednecks who absolutely must have the right to carry a loaded weapon pretty much where ever they want simply because they believe the slippery slope canard.

    Everybody seems to agree that their is no way the dems are going to mess with guns.

    We just want to inject a bit of sanity into the law and policy. If you insist on your narrow reading of the 2nd amendment in the face of intelligent law, you will find yourself with nothing.

  96. #96 by Moribund Republic on February 16, 2009 - 12:57 pm

    “you will find yourself with nothing”.

    We will have our guns.

    Everyone on their best behavior at the National Parks now ya hear? Never know who could be legally packing.

    Have a nice day.

  97. #97 by Bob S. on February 16, 2009 - 1:07 pm

    Cliff,

    You consistently argue one then, then when proven wrong switch gears.

    So, if we are concerned about deadly weapons; shouldn’t we have personality tests before people can purchase cars? Power Tools? Knives? Fertilizer?

    Nice sensationalism and exhibition of PSH syndrome

    You and I both know BOB, that the kind of people who feel the need to carry a loaded human killer into a National Park are not necessarily the smartest folks America has to offer.

    Love the “loaded human killer” part…does that mean the law enforcement personnel who carry firearms into the national parks aren’t the smartest people that America has to offer?

    Seeing how there are approximately 270,000,000 firearms in America, and less then 20,000 humans killed with firearms a year, couldn’t you say that is, at the minimum, hyperbole on your part?

    I feel instinctively, in my gut,

    Are you sure that isn’t indigestion you are feeling? Your gut doesn’t have anything to do with Constitutionally protected rights and the law Cliff.
    Isn’t the True Spirit of America – Liberty? Freedom?

    You have plenty of spaces free from firearms Cliff, you just can’t exclude firearms from shared spaces because it makes your insides go all quivering at the thought of being around firearms.

    spineless rednecks

    Obviously you have to attack personally those that disagree with you because the law, the principles, the constitution and most of the public is against you. Have you noticed that 48 out of 50 states have some form of concealed carry? That the people in those states haven’t voted to change those laws to more restrictive?

    Shouldn’t that clue you in that most people are okay with their friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, doctors, lawyers, bakers, mechanics, etc carrying firearms if those people want to?

    right to carry a loaded weapon pretty much where ever they want simply because they believe the slippery slope canard.

    It isn’t the slippery slope canard that we believe in. We believe in the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

    We fight people like you because of the slippery slope…a canard that has proven to be true time and time again. Felons shouldn’t be allowed to keep and bear arms is a common argument…and no one would try to push people down that slippery slope, eh?


    Just a few weeks
    after the Los Angeles City Council approved a batch of new gun and ammunition ordinances tightening restrictions on ammunition vendors, council members Jack Weiss and Janice Hahn are proposing a new law that would make it more difficult for individuals convicted of certain misdemeanors to own guns.

    The proposal, which Weiss and Hahn plan to introduce as early as today’s council meeting, would expand on a state law that bars possession of a gun for 10 years if convicted of certain crimes, including assault, illegal weapons sales or threatening a public official or a witness.

    Sorry Cliff, I disagree. I don’t think my reading is narrow nor will it get me “nothing”. I see that if I can keep people like you from a narrow reading, I keep something invaluable – Liberty!

  98. #98 by Cliff on February 16, 2009 - 2:46 pm

    There you go again Bob; comparing everyday utilities with a weapon whose sole purpose is to kill another human being.

    You Sir are hardly qualified to decide if I am “proven wrong” when you cannot understand the argument.

    Yes, I think it is an excellent idea to do an intelligence test before letting people handle a human killer weapon.

    But I don’t think people should be judged by their personality. Too hard to measure.

    Why I wonder did you suggest personality over intelligence. Are you bad test taker?

  99. #99 by Cliff on February 16, 2009 - 2:49 pm

    If there can be no liberty without guns, than there can be no liberty.

  100. #100 by Bob S. on February 16, 2009 - 3:00 pm

    Cliff,

    You seem to enjoy the rehashing of arguments. We’ve been over this many times. Are you sure you aren’t secretly pro-firearms….you certainly provide an opportunity to show how wrong the anti-firearm side is.

    You claim, wrongly, that firearms are a weapon

    whose sole purpose is to kill another human being

    Then how do you explain this:

    On the program of the Games of the XXIX Olympiad, Beijing 2008

    * • 10m air pistol (60 shots) Men
    * • 10m air rifle (60 shots) Men
    * • 25m rapid fire pistol (60 shots) Men
    * • 50m pistol (60 shots) Men
    * • 50m rifle 3 positions (3×40 shots) Men
    * • 50m rifle prone (60 shots) Men
    * • double trap (150 targets) Men
    * • skeet (125 targets) Men
    * • trap (125 targets) Men
    * • 10m air pistol (40 shots) Women
    * • 10m air rifle (40 shots) Women
    * • 25m pistol (30+30 shots) Women
    * • 50m rifle 3 positions (3×20 shots) Women
    * • skeet (75 targets) Women
    * • trap (75 targets) Women

    Again your elitism is showing when you arrogantly write things like this:

    You Sir are hardly qualified to decide if I am “proven wrong” when you cannot understand the argument

    Did you not wrongly claim the 2nd amendment pertained only to Militia?
    Did you not wrongly claim the 2nd amendment didn’t protect an individual right?

    Now, I may not be qualified to decide if you are wrong…but the Supreme Court is definitely qualified and that august body did declare your arguments to be wrong.

  101. #101 by jdberger on February 16, 2009 - 3:22 pm

    If there can be no liberty without guns, than there can be no liberty.

    You finally get it, Cliff.

  102. #102 by Cliff on February 16, 2009 - 3:43 pm

    I guess I have a higher standard for quality of life than you JD. I’ll take mine. You move.

    Bob, Once again, you simply don’t get. What does a list of sporting guns have to do with concealed carry in National Parks?

    I don’t have a problem with sports that involve guns. I have a problem with people like you a JD carrying loaded ones in public.

    You guys are NOT Olympians WHO by the way MAY NOT carry their guns loaded except in designated areas in most Olympic Cities including Salt Lake 2001.

    Are you TRYING to embarrass yourself?

  103. #103 by Bob S. on February 16, 2009 - 4:00 pm

    Cliff,

    The list of shooting sports prove once again that you are simply wrong. You stated that firearms only have 1 -ONE-purpose to kill human beings.

    That list proves you wrong, again. What is hard to understand about that?

    As far as JD and I carrying in public (if JD and I do carry in public) there is no evidence that we, as licensed concealed carry holders are creating problems. Study after Study, report after report shows that CHL holders are some of the most law abiding people around.

    I don’t have a problem with sports that involve guns. I have a problem with people like you a JD carrying loaded ones in public.

    You can have a problem all you want, you CAN NOT interfere with my rights because you have a problem.

    Are you trying to embarrass yourself in arguing that because you soil yourself at the thought of armed citizens that you have a right to disarm everyone?

    See a counselor, a psychologist, a psychiatrist about your fears but whatever you do; stop trying to deny other people their rights.

  104. #104 by jdberger on February 16, 2009 - 4:10 pm

    No, Cliff. We’re not Olympians.

    We’re citizens.

    Actually, it’s you that might want to consider relocating. Utah has something like 122,000 licensed CCW holders. In addition, it allow for “open carry” of firearms.

    Maybe you should think about somewhere further East. Just stay out of Vermont. You don’t even need a CCW to carry concealed in Vermont. Virginia allows open carry. So does Maine, Delaware, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

    NYC and DC are pretty gun restrictive, though. Maybe you’d feel safer there?

  105. #105 by Cliff on February 16, 2009 - 5:39 pm

    Bob, This one might be hard to understand.

    Your demand for the so called right to carry a concealed weapon is not, I assume, because you are too lazy to unload after the shooting competition, but rather derived from the implication of the gun-lobby’s gun rights to specific intention to allow people to carry hand guns for use in self-defense.

    You can’t on the one hand argue that guns are the same as cars because both CAN kill people, then turn around and say not all guns are owned or carried for the purpose of killing people.

    Do you see the hypocrisy there, or do (did) you just smack your wife every time she calls[ed] you one?

    Really Bob, you should to improve your critical thinking skills. You argue like Richard Okelberries.

    Both of you will be divorced some day if not already.

    As for you JD. So what?

  106. #106 by Bob S. on February 16, 2009 - 6:15 pm

    Cliff,

    Actually I can argue that point quite eloquently. It is a little advanced so it might go over your head. Try to follow long, I’ll use small words.

    Automobiles have many purposes, some of them are designed and used to climb rocks and hills – a sport.
    Some Automobiles are designed and used to go around in circles on tracks built for that purpose. This automobiles can go much faster then most cars. That is a sport
    Some Automobiles are designed and built to go in a straight line for a very short distant…that is a sport.
    Some automobiles are designed to carry large amounts of goods, products, people and or a wide variety of things….this is different purpose –not a sport.

    Any of these activities can cause the death of people participating in them. Any of the vehicles used in these activities can be used to kill people.

    Now follow along here, some automobiles are designed and built to help people; police cars, ambulances, etc. Now just because some vehicles can be used to kill, outside of their purpose; this doesn’t negate the beneficial purpose of automobiles.
    Just because some automobiles can and have been used to kill people doesn’t mean that all automobiles are used to kill people?

    Have I illustrated the difference between design and intent sufficiently?

    Firearms are designed to propel a piece of metal down a tube. The target of that design is up to the individual holding the firearm. The Olympic athletes use firearms designed to produce holes in paper targets with precision and accuracy. While this is a sport, those firearms can be used to kill people also….but that isn’t what they were designed for, it isn’t what they are intended for.

    then turn around and say not all guns are owned or carried for the purpose of killing people.

    Now, Have I clearly explained this? Even firearms carried for the intention of self protection aren’t carried to kill. They are carried to STOP THE THREAT. Now unfortunately, the best way to stop a threat often ends up with the CRIMINAL dying.

    But that isn’t always the case and it isn’t the preferred case for those that carry concealed, regardless of the slurs you try to throw.

    Some times no shots are fired
    The officer lost sight of the suspect, but received information that a black male armed with a gun had forced open the door at a residence in the 200 block of Strasburg.

    The home owner observed Noel inside of the residence and immediately armed himself.

    While the suspect attempted to remove clothing, the home owner was able to hold the suspect at gunpoint until police arrived.

    Self Defense is a human right Cliff.

    Nice how you continue the personal attacks instead of focusing on the issue. Standard anti-civil right tactics.

    You’ve just about covered the gamut of excuses….what are you going to try next?
    Maybe we don’t need to carry firearms because the law enforcement will be there to protect us?

  107. #107 by jdberger on February 16, 2009 - 7:58 pm

    I guess that Bob and I are operating on the assumption that Cliff believes that there is a human right to life, and that people have the right to defend their lives.

    Do you disagree with that premise, Cliff?

    Do you think that people have a right to life? A right to survive?

  108. #108 by Richard Warnick on February 16, 2009 - 8:25 pm

    Bob S.–

    Apparently you guys have been at this all day, more than 100 comments debating an open-and-shut simple issue.

    Because the Bush administration says their new rule won’t interfere with anti-poaching efforts, that’s a meaningless statement. It’s plainly false to for them to claim that there is no illegal shooting on national forests or BLM land, I have a weekly summary of incident reports to prove it. Above, I cited six gun violations from just one week in mid-winter.

    On the NEPA issue, the Chief of the National Park Service Environmental Quality Division, Jacob Hoogland, warned in an April 3, 2008, e-mail (PDF) that the rule “required additional NEPA analysis” and that “at minimum an Environmental Assessment should be prepared on the proposed revision to the existing firearms regulation.”

    The Chief of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Policy and Directives Management, Michael Schwartz, warned in a May 14, 2008, e-mail (PDF), “The rule was published before they did any NEPA analysis. Last week, I pointed out that this is a procedural flaw.”

    The Bush administration rule is invalid.

  109. #109 by jdberger on February 16, 2009 - 9:22 pm

    Your conclusion is debatable, at best, Richard.

    Regarding poaching, why would someone who underwent a criminal background check to ensure that he had a clean record, submitted fingerprints, took classes and generally jumped through all the hoops required by the State to carry a concealed weapon suddenly turn into a lawbreaker?

    Can you explain that amazing metamorphosis??\

    Why is it that people like you and Cliff assume that the firemen and doctors and carpenters and accountants and lawyers and electricians and masons and other people that you trust with your wealth and your life on a daily basis will suddenly turn into homicidal maniacs as soon as they touch a gun? Isn’t that a bit irrational?

  110. #110 by Bob S. on February 16, 2009 - 9:22 pm

    Richard,

    You are being blatantly dishonest here

    Because the Bush administration says their new rule won’t interfere with anti-poaching efforts, that’s a meaningless statement. It’s plainly false to for them to claim that there is no illegal shooting on national forests or BLM land, I have a weekly summary of incident reports to prove it.

    The rule change does not affect national forests or BLM land. Why should the illegal shooting on those lands have anything to do with the changes for Concealed Carry in National Parks?

    That is a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue. You can’t argue it both ways.

    1. If crime isn’t a problem, then firearms aren’t a problem and the people carrying them, in their cars or on their bodies aren’t a problem.

    2. If crime is a problem, then people have a right to defend themselves- pant soiling hysteria from some people or not.

    Let’s post what that email says

    Jacob Hoogland
    04/03,/2008 09:15 PM EDT
    To: Jerry CaseANASO/NPS
    cc: Jennifer LeeANASO/NPS, Bert FrosUWASO/NPS, Mary Foley/Boston/NPS, Karen
    Taylor-GoodrichANASO/NPS, Don CoelhoANASO/NPS
    Subject: Applicability of CE for Firearms Regulation Revision
    Jerry:
    As you know, the NPS NEPA procedures provide for a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for some types of modification or revisions to existing regulations.
    Specifically, the language states that a CE applies in cases of:
    “Modifications or revisions to exisitng regulations, or the promulgaiton of new regulations for NPS administered areas, provided the modifications, revisions or new regulations do not:
    (a) increase public use to the extent of compromising the nature and
    character of the area or cause physical damage to il.
    (b) introduce non-compatible uses that might compromise the nature and characteristics of the area or cause physical damage to it.
    (c) conflict with adjacent ownerships or land uses,
    (d) cause a nuisance to adjacent owners or occupants.”

    In addition to determining whether a CE applies, the NPS must also look to
    the 13OI provisions concerning extraordinary circumstances. The DOI revised
    the list of extraordinary circumstances in 2004. That listing provides
    that: Extraordinary circumstances exist for individual actions within CXs which may:
    2.1 Have significant impacts on’ public health or safety.
    2.2 Have significant impacts on such natural resources and unique geographic
    characteristics as historic or cultural resources; park, recreation or refuge lands; wildemess areas; wild or scenic dvers; national natural landmarks; sole or principal drinking water aquifers; prime farmlands; wetlands (Executive Order 11990); floodplains (Executive Order 11988); national monuments; migratory birds; and other ecologically significant or critical areas.
    2.3 Have highly controversial environmental effects or involve uhresolvod conflicts
    concerning alternative uses of available resources [NEPA Section 102(2)(E)].
    2.4 Have highly uncertain and potentially significant environmental effects or involve unique or unknown environmental risks.
    2.5 Establish a precedent for future action or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects.
    2.6 Have a direct relationship to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant environmental effects.
    2.7 Have significant impacts on properlies listed, or eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places as determined by either the bureau or office.
    2.8 Have significant impacts on species listed, or proposed to be listed, on the List of
    Endangered or Threatened Species., or have significant impacts on designated Critical Habitat for these species. DOI-2009-01216
    2.9 Violate a Federal law, or a Slate, local, or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment.
    2,10 Have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or minority populations (Executive Order 12898).
    2.11 Limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites on Federal lands by Indian religious practitioners or significantly adversely affect the physical integrity of such sacred sites (Executive Order 13007),
    2.12 Contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious weeds or nonnative invasive species known to occur in the area or actions that may promote the introduction, growth, or expansion of the range o! such species (Federal Noxious Weed Control Act and Executive Order 13112).”

    With the proposed revision to the firearms regulation we are faced with a situation similar to the NPS position in the Edmonds Institute v. Babbitt. There the NPS invoked the use of a categorical exclusion in a proposed first time implementation of a “Cooperative Research and Development” agreement. The Court there indicated that it was likely that the extraordinary circumstances would apply and required additional NEPA evaluation in the form of either an EA or an EIS.
    As in the Edmonds case, the proposed modification to the firearms regulation may result in actions that could trigger many of the extraordinary circumstances described under the DOl’ s procedures. Because of this, at minimum an Environmental Assessment should be prepared on
    the proposed revision to the existing firearms regulation.
    I would be happy to talk with you about this, or provide you additional information.
    Thanks
    Jake
    Jacob J.Hoogland
    Chief, Environmental Quality Division
    National Park Service
    Washington, D.C. ~
    Office.202-513-7188
    Fax.202-371-1710
    DOI

    Now out of all that, there is only one section that is applicable at all

    2.1 Have significant impacts on’ public health or safety.

    Since when is the Chief of the Environmental Quality Division an expert on the impact of concealed carry on public health or safety?

    And since there is no evidence presented by the anti-civil rights folks on this board or anywhere else that Concealed Carry Holders are a “significant impact on public health or safety”, this categorically does not require an impact statement.

    Just like the Bush Administration claimed.

    Sorry, but just because some people don’t like firearms does make them a significant environmental impact.

    From the second portion:

    1. NEPA
    The rule was published before they did any NEPA analysis. Last week, I pointed out that this is a procedural flaw.
    David is trying to determine whether to do an EA, EIS, or categorical exclusion. The last would be a beefed up version. There was no decision. Even an EA will delay the rule considerably.

    I posted earlier from the very rule itself showing that

    National Environmental Policy Act
    The Department has analyzed the final rule under NEPA and determined that the action is subject to a categorical exclusion under applicable regulations.
    See 43 CFR 46.210. First, the rulemaking is in the nature of a legal change to existing rules that will not have any actual effects on the environment. And second, the Department has determined that no ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ exist which would prevent the proposed action from being classified as categorically excluded. Id. This decision is fully described in our decision document dated November 18, 2008, which is available to the public at http://www.doi.gov/.

    While the preliminary rule may have been published without the required NEPA statements, the final version certainly includes it. Are you denying that?

    So try to come up with more arguments.
    You claim it was a last minute rush job…JD showed that was wrong.
    You claim the required documentation for the NEPA wasn’t done…the published final rule proves that wrong.
    You claim violence isn’t a problem, if it isn’t a problem…then carrying firearms isn’t a problem because the firearms are already in the park.
    You claim violence is a problem…just not in national parks…but if violence is a problem – shouldn’t people have the right to effective defense? The Supreme Court says people should in Heller v. D.C.

    Over and over again, the arguments have been demolished.

  111. #111 by jdberger on February 16, 2009 - 9:24 pm

    And Cliffy? Doesn’t Utah scare the shit out of you? With all them gun-totin’ rednecks milling about, aren’t you just petrified that one might just go ballistic and target puffy bloggers with anger management issues?

  112. #112 by Cliff Lyon on February 16, 2009 - 9:25 pm

    First of all, thank you Richard for taking the time to lay it out.

    I am too tired.

    I’d rather just take’em to the woodshed. And I’m packin’ hot loads.

  113. #113 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 4:07 am

    Cliff,

    Is that code for “I don’t have any more crap to throw against the wall in a poo flinging fit, they aren’t debating fair. They are using facts. Help Richard”

  114. #114 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2009 - 7:28 am

    It’s an endless loop, that goes like this:

    1. Bob S. cites a bogus argument from the Bush administration or the gun rights advocates.

    2. I refute it with facts.

    4. Bob S. says that I’m trying “to confuse the issue.”

    5. Return to step 1.

    The issue is simple. The National Park System has a 70-year-old rule that has worked just fine, and nobody considers it a problem. But the Bush administration wants to give a parting gift to the Gun Lobby, and create a headache for the incoming administration, so they ignore the public and the National Park Service, they ignore the law, and create a controversy where none existed.

  115. #115 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 7:37 am

    Richard,

    What facts have you offered?

    The fact that violence isn’t a problem in National parks…but you report on violence in National Forests and BLM as a problem….no confusion there.

    Now, let’s deal with this one issue and deal with it with facts.

    1. Guns are currently allowed in National parks, Correct?

    2. As you’ve reported, crime in National Parks is low, Correct?

    3. From this we can reasonably conclude that people with firearms aren’t committing a large number of crimes, Correct?

    4. Concealed Carry License holders have been shown to be statistically some of the most law abiding people, Correct?

    5. The rule change allow those law abiding people to move the firearms – which aren’t causing problems but are present–out of their cars, Correct?

    So, what part of that issue have I confused? Which part haven’t I refuted with facts?

  116. #116 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 7:38 am

    #3 applies to National Parks, not the population in general.

  117. #117 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2009 - 9:16 am

    Bob S.—

    I’m sorry you are confused. The lack of rules and enforcement on public lands where hunting is allowed clearly and indisputably coincides with irresponsible use of firearms. Do I have to post a photo of a bullet-hole-riddled sign, or have you seen one of those on a national forest or BLM land?

    The rule on national parks is: guns must be unloaded and cased. Surely, your law-abiding licensed shooters have no problem with that. They are visiting the national parks to enjoy this country’s natural and historical heritage, not to blast away.

    This is a non-issue, and Bush’s rule will soon be a non-rule.

  118. #118 by Cliff on February 17, 2009 - 9:29 am

    Bob S,

    Check you logic here;

    3. From this we can reasonably conclude that people with firearms aren’t committing a large number of crimes, Correct?

    ALL people who commit gun related crimes are “with fire arms.”

  119. #119 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 9:50 am

    Cliff,

    I amended my statement to limit it to the National parks.

    Even still, while firearm are used in firearm related crimes; those crimes are still a minor percentage of total crime.

    Year Firearm crimes as a percent of all violent incidents
    2000 7
    2001 9
    2002 7
    2003 7
    2004 6
    2005 9

    I think that less then 10% still qualifies, in comparison, not a large number of crimes.

    Cliff, it seems from your statement, your logic that all you care about is “firearm crime”. Is that true?

    Richard,

    Again, you are arguing about crime being committed in National Forests and then saying we need to keep guns out of National Parks, when the rule only affects National Parks.

    That’s like saying Chicago has a high crime rate so let’s make everyone in Salt Lake City stop carrying firearms. That doesn’t make sense.

    Yes Richard, obviously licensed gun owners have a problem with being told to check our rights at the front of a national park.

    People have a right to free speech. That right can be misused to commit crimes, just like firearms can be misused. But people don’t have to put duct tape on their mouths at the gate of a National Park to keep them from committing fraud, libel, making threats, etc; do they?

    Why should I, a law abiding gun owner, have to stop exercising my right to keep and bear arms?

    Because you and Cliff soil yourself, your “stress levels increase” if you simply believe that someone, somewhere within the vicinity may be armed?

    Sorry but your fears do not over ride my rights. What part of that is confusing?

  120. #120 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 10:00 am

    And just for pointing out the obvious.

    Not all of the National Parks have readily available enforcement personnel:

    The right to keep and bear arms in case of Monkey Attack shall not be infringed

    An out-of-control, 200-pound pet chimpanzee apparently went berserk and mauled a woman in Connecticut, leaving her in critical condition.

    The owner of the former TV star chimp Travis stabbed him multiple times, but to no avail. Police were called to the scene and say they had no choice but to shoot and kill the pet-gone-wild.

    The bizarre scene unfolded in Stamford, when Travis suddenly attacked and tore up the face of 55-year-old Charla Nash, who was visiting his owner Sandra Herold Monday night.

    Nash was taken to the hospital with severe wounds and listed in critical condition…

    Police said they had no idea why Travis attacked Nash as she got out of her car to visit Herold. There was speculation that it may have been because she had recently changed her hairstyle and the animal could have thought she was an intruder.

    Conklin said Herold wrestled with the chimp, then ran inside to call 911.

    “She retrieved a large butcher knife and stabbed her longtime pet numerous times in an effort to save her friend, who was really being brutally attacked,” Conklin said.

    Note the stabbing didn’t stop the attack.

    Now monkey/chimpanzee attacks are admitted rare, but like the Scouts; one should Be Prepared.

  121. #121 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2009 - 10:17 am

    Bob S–

    You asked for it. Here’s your sign, courtesy of responsible, law-abiding gun owners.

    Only the Bush administration’s rule making policy is more full of holes!

  122. #122 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 10:28 am

    Richard,

    Nice propaganda but that is still what it is!.

    Is that sign from a National Park?

    Has that sign been shot up by people with concealed carry licenses?

    For all I know, it could have been Cliff out there shooting it up to make the pro-civil rights folks like me look bad.

    Now…according to you, crime in National Parks is low, correct?

    According to the law, firearms have been permitted in national parks for a while, right?

    According to the statistics, then firearm owners are not committing considerable crimes in National parks.

    Deal only with NATIONAL PARKS, Please. That is what the Rule change deals with…..Can you stay on subject?

    By the way….Obama’s Administration is defending the rule change….have you seen that great bit of news?

  123. #123 by jdberger on February 17, 2009 - 10:36 am

    Again, you are attributing the bad actions of a few and projecting it on the many, Richard.

    You cited “statistics” before regarding misuse of firearms on Nat’l Forest land. But how many people have NOT misused firearms on Nat’l Forest land? How many people shoot responsibly? Got any statistics on that, Richard?

    I don’t think so – wanna know why? Because it isn’t news. It’s common. The VAST majority of gun owners and shooters are responsible and safe and the reason, the ONLY reason that you have any statistics or anecdotes is because they are so anomolous as to me interesting.

  124. #124 by jdberger on February 17, 2009 - 10:42 am

    Finally, it’s very possible that the Brady’s suit will be tossed due to lack of standing.

    Yep, there might be some serious standing issues. Brady Campaign in itself, as a corporation, is not affected by the rule. It has to argue organizational standing, that it should proceed as a surrogate for its members. That requires it to show (1) its members suffer harm in fact (so broadly defined that, yes, they can easily show that. Just get some to say they’ll quit going to parks that allow guns, or be apprehensive when doing so). (2) that the harm is “germane” to the organization’s purpose and (3) individual participation is not required (again, easily shown).

    (2) *might* be a problem. The purported harm in fact is that members don’t go to certain parks, and Brady Campaign’s purposes do not include getting people into parks. But there was, during my time at Interior, a ruling by the DC Circuit that held that HSUS had standing to sue over hunting in wildlife refuges (which allegedly left their members disgusted at gut piles, etc.) even tho it, too, was not a travel agency. The DC Circuit held that “germane” was a very broad term.

  125. #125 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2009 - 10:53 am

    Bob S.–

    Again, you totally miss the point. You don’t see many shot-up signs in national parks. Try to follow the logic.

  126. #126 by jdberger on February 17, 2009 - 11:00 am

    Oh….I think I get it, Richard.

    What you’re saying is that no legal guns = no gun crimes?

    Is this correct?

  127. #127 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 11:04 am

    Just to show that the one side of the argument tries to presents facts, here are the conviction rates for concealed handgun license holders in Texas for 2002-2006 — Expressed as a percentage of Total Convictions in that year

    2002 – 0.1343%
    2003 – 0.1188%
    2004 – 0.1554%
    2005 – 0.2513%
    2006 – 0.2275%

    Now, if Concealed Carry holders were causing problems, wouldn’ t the conviction rates be higher?

  128. #128 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 11:08 am

    Richard,

    If there was logic, I would be able to follow it.

    So, since people outside national parks shot up signs we can’t allow guns to be carried in national parks?

    Isn’t that like saying because people abuse prescription drugs outside the hospitals we can’t send prescription drugs home with people ?

    Are there people who break the law with firearms, yes. Just like there are people who break the law with matches —- it’s called arson.

    Does that mean we should ban matches, lighters and other spark producing items from national parks?

  129. #129 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2009 - 11:19 am

    Bob S.–

    Pretending to be dim-witted isn’t that funny. It’s just… dim.

  130. #130 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 11:34 am

    Richard,

    The phrase is physician heal thyself.

    Are there people breaking the law with matches? Is that a reason to ban matches?

    Yes or No.

    No discussion of national forests, no posting signs that are burnt up.

  131. #131 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2009 - 11:55 am

    Bob S.–

    Nobody is talking about banning guns. You never had logic on your side in this discussion, and it shows.

  132. #132 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 11:59 am

    Richard,

    Okay, then because people misuse matches in national forests…is it acceptable to require matches to be locked in cars, inaccessible?

  133. #133 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 11:59 am

    Sorry, that should be locked in cars, inaccessible in national parks?

    Hit the submit button too soon

  134. #134 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2009 - 12:09 pm

    This is just a political stunt by the Bush administration to invent a controversy where there wasn’t one, for the benefit of the Gun Lobby. If this discussion is any indication, the gun people got what they wanted.

    Seven former National Park Service directors went on record opposing any changes in the regulation last April, in a letter to Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne.

    The New York Times
    called the Bush rule “the antithesis of common sense… absurd and dangerous.”

    The vast majority of the 125,000 comments received opposed the rule, but the Bush administration went ahead anyway.

  135. #135 by jdberger on February 17, 2009 - 12:15 pm

    The vast majority of the 125,000 comments received opposed the rule, but the Bush administration went ahead anyway.

    Bullshit.

    Prove it.

  136. #136 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 12:21 pm

    Richard,

    So you duck away from the debate because the logic goes against you.

    Also…just because the majority likes or dislikes something that isn’t an excuse to trample the rights of others.

    The law, the Constitution is designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority. It is working.

    My rights do not interfere with your rights. My carrying or not, does not interfere with your enjoyment of nature in the national parks. It really is that simple.

    If I get 125,000 comments against you or Cliff being allowed to speak in public, does that mean I can trump your rights?

  137. #137 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2009 - 12:59 pm

    jd–

    According to the NPCA, of the 140,000 people who voiced their opinion during the public comment period, 73 percent opposed allowing loaded, concealed firearms in the parks.

    Bob S.–

    True enough, majority rule in this country is tempered by respect for the constitutional rights of others (or at least it ought to be– ask the victims of Prop 8). Here we are talking about a simple, 100 percent constitutional rule that stood for 70 years without compliant, being changed because a few lobbyists wanted something from the Bush administration.

  138. #138 by Moribund Republic on February 17, 2009 - 1:13 pm

    Whoever shot up the sign, whether in a Park, or anywhere else, is not a law abiding gun owner. The picture explains itself in the crime.

    It is illegal to destroy public signs, and legitimate private signs for that matter.

    The matter is one of catching the perps. Then they lose their right to firearms if the destruction is a felony. Simple enough in a society that invests in equality before the Rule of Law.

  139. #139 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 1:21 pm

    Richard,

    If majority rule is tempered by the constitutional rights of others, how do you justify trying to restrict the rights of people in National Parks?

    Here we are talking about a simple rule that stood for 70 years without compliant, being changed because a few lobbyists wanted something from the Bush administration.

    We aren’t talking about a simple rule, We aren’t talking about 70 years without complaint, We aren’t talking about something only lobbyist care about.

    (Especially since over 37,800 people commented favorably on the ruling by your own numbers….patently untrue that all of us are just lobbyists. )

    We are talking about Constitutionally Protected Rights. The effort to restore those rights have been an on-going struggle that has been happening for more then 70 years.

  140. #140 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2009 - 1:37 pm

    Bob S.–

    The national park rule on guns was basically unchanged for 70 years. It restricted the rights of nobody. It protected wildlife, and made national parks the safest places in America. Just a common-sense rule that remains almost universally accepted.

    Your hysterics on this issue are out of place.

  141. #141 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 1:53 pm

    Richard,

    Wrong, it did restrict the rights of people. Have you read the decision in Heller v. D.C.

    That decision stated that it was an unconstitutional restriction to require firearms to be locked away, to prevent them from being readily accessible. Isn’t that the same requirement as the prior National Park rule?

    The phrasing in the 2nd amendment is the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. If I am restricted from bearing arms in a national park, how can that be anything other then a restriction of my rights?

    The national park rule on guns was basically unchanged for 70 years.

    Are you claiming that if something exists for a long time, that makes it acceptable?
    You know the answer to that….or you should.

  142. #142 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2009 - 2:00 pm

    Bob S.–

    You’re wrong on the facts and the law. The vast majority of your fellow Americans don’t agree with your strained interpretation of the Constitution. What more is there to say?

  143. #143 by Moribund Republic on February 17, 2009 - 2:08 pm

    Ever hang in the Park(s) in Alaska Richard? Big bears. Big. All the Rangers are sporting .44 mags or 45-70, .338 mag. Why can’t we? Bare minimum for stopping Yogi and the stolen piki-nick basket..

    No one cares what the “vast” majority of Americans think. In this Republic personal ownership and now carrying guns in the Parks is allowed by Law, and is irrevocable under the Bill of Rights for non-felons. What matters is the Constitution and what the Supreme Court thinks.

  144. #144 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 2:14 pm

    Richard,

    The Supreme Court of the United States agrees with my interpretation.

    Have any evidence to show otherwise that I am wrong?

    How about the Miller Decision…please, pretty please bring up the Miller Decision?

    The fact is that if I have the right to walk in a state park with a concealed firearm, then I should and do have the right to carry in a national park. That is the fact, that is the law.

    Show where I went wrong Richard. You can’t. You argue about national parks but bring in crime in national forests. You argue that firearms are dangerous, but firearms are allowed in the parks now. You argue that concealed carry license holders may suddenly turn violent, but the statistics do not show that happening.

    Ever argument you’ve made I (and JD & Moribund & others) have factual destroyed.

    All that is left is pant soiling hysteria from you and Cliff. Whining about his stress levels going up if he believes firearms are around.

  145. #145 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2009 - 2:46 pm

    Bob S.–

    For you, apparently, obedience to gun-rights ideology trumps all other considerations and facts are not worthy of consideration. You have ignored all the evidence I presented here, or twisted it to accuse me of “confusing the issue.”

    Bottom line– the Bush rule on firearms in national parks is illegal and it’s not going to stand. As a practical matter, the National Park Service and a majority of the public just don’t support it anyway.

  146. #146 by jdberger on February 17, 2009 - 2:47 pm

    Richard – NPCA is a lobbying group. I don’t buy their numbers. Please provide figures that aren’t quite as impeachable.

    And Rednecks….Cliffy is afraid of rednecks.

  147. #147 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2009 - 2:49 pm

    jd–

    If you don’t believe NPCA’s tally of public comments, then you are welcome to present other information– please give us a link.

  148. #148 by jdberger on February 17, 2009 - 2:57 pm

    Richard – rights are rights.

    I (and probably Bob and MR) are sorry that they make you uncomfortable- but you are just going to have to suck it up.

    Don’t worry, you can continue to embrace your nightmares of drunken mulletted yokels ripped on Early Times blasting away at your beloved park signs while rockin’ to Molly Hatchet. We won’t take that away from you. That fantasy clearly makes you more comfortable.

    In the meantime, CCW holders are going to quietly pack their “hidden loaded semi-automatic handguns” with naught a whisper…

    And you’ll harken back to the day when the ‘annointed’ were allowed to carry their testosterone on a Sam Browne belt, and you’ll sigh – I guess, and pine for the days when you were in charge and not some insignificant blogger who has to make up facts to participate in arguments.

  149. #149 by jdberger on February 17, 2009 - 2:58 pm

    It’s your cite, Richard. You defend it.

  150. #150 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2009 - 3:09 pm

    jd–

    I’m impressed with your detailed knowledge of what goes on when ample supplies of alcoholic beverages and bullets are available to yokels “recreating” on our public lands. If you give me your e-mail address, I’ll be happy to forward the weekly law enforcement reports.

    As for the public comments, if you claim that they went in favor of the Bush rule then the burden of proof is on you. If you can prove that the NPCA is lying, or offer a credible alternative analysis of the comments, I’d be interested. Otherwise your opinion is worthless.

  151. #151 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 3:17 pm

    Richard,

    You claimed the comments were against the change, then cited a source that provide no information on how it obtained that.

    JD, please feel free to use me as a citation. I hear by claim that 99.99999% of the comments were in favor of the Bush Rule change…and included a request to keep Cliff and Richard out of the National Parks.

    Richard, you presented scant evidence, much conjecture, a ton of personal opinion and loads of fear. The evidence you presented does not bolster your case.

    Based on your citation of violence level, in 2007 there were 4,547 violent crimes committed in National Parks.

    Now again, what level of violent crimes is sufficient to allow people the right to carry a firearm on their person? Is it one more then 4,547?

    As far as your weekly law enforcement reports…I’ll match each and every one of them with a provable defensive gun use.

    Rights are Rights..it doesn’t matter if I am in a National park or standing outside my house in this case…my rights don’t change.

  152. #152 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2009 - 3:20 pm

    Bob S.–

    It’s been fun watching all the vigorous hand-waving on your side of the argument. But enough is enough, don’t you think? We’re over 150 comments now.

  153. #153 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 3:27 pm

    Sure, just admit you are wrong. :>

    I’m used to arguing with you and Cliff….I have children. I can do this all day; provide logical, factual, cited evidence against the pants soiling hysteria typified by your anecdote and Cliff’s wonderfully phrased fear.

  154. #154 by Richard Warnick on February 17, 2009 - 3:39 pm

    Bob S.–

    Apparently you spend too much time arguing with your children, as your abandonment of logic for foot-stomping shows. BTW you already conceded that the public comments went against the Bush rule.

    I’m not worried, the rule will be reversed one way or another and sanity will return to the national parks.

    If you are interested in matching the law enforcement incident reports against reports of legal use of firearms for self-defense, I’ve given you six already. Want some more?

  155. #155 by jdberger on February 17, 2009 - 5:00 pm

    One true benefit of this rule is that the handwringing ninnys like Cliff and Richard who are afraid of people won’t be clogging up the Parks anymore.

    But, ya know, Bob….maybe Richard is right. If the Nat’l Parks restrict CCW holders, maybe it’ll be as safe as Washington DC.

    One can only hope….

  156. #156 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 5:48 pm

    JD,

    Don’t forget those other safe spots, like Chicago.

    It’s tempting to move to Utah and take advantage of the Open Carry laws there but I think I’ll just work to add Texas as another state that allows open carry.

  157. #157 by jdberger on February 17, 2009 - 6:02 pm

    I’m a bit shocked that TX doesn’t have open carry.

    Maybe you should try AZ? All the benefits of TX, none of the humidity.

    The only interesting thing I can think of in UT is the snow and Moab.

  158. #158 by Obama the Paul [merLot] on February 17, 2009 - 6:12 pm

    so long as george bush is alive, TX will never pass an open carry law … it’d be just too damn tempting!

  159. #159 by jdberger on February 17, 2009 - 6:28 pm

    Do you think that’s why the Clintons moved to NYC, Jim?

  160. #160 by Cliff on February 17, 2009 - 7:24 pm

    Oh please JD, The average gun freak is too pussy to mess with Clinton. After all, they never had it better.

    Bush on the other hand is singularly responsible for more pain & suffering than any single man in history with Hitler running a close second.

  161. #161 by Bob S. on February 17, 2009 - 7:36 pm

    Cliff,

    Thanks for showing everyone how classy gun banners like you are.

    Please don’t change, you are one of the most effective advocate for the PRO – CIVIL rights side.

    Your constant personal attacks show how little there is to the anti-firearm argument.

  162. #162 by jdberger on February 18, 2009 - 1:26 am

    I invoke Godwin’s Law, Cliff. You lose.

  163. #163 by Kevin Owens on February 18, 2009 - 6:48 am

    I think Stalin might deserve the spot above Hitler. He certainly wins in quantity, if not quality, of pain and suffering.

  164. #164 by Cliff on February 18, 2009 - 2:34 pm

    Godwin’s Law refers to Nazi comparisons. I am comparing pain and suffering, physical and economic.

    But since you mentioned it, let us review the definition of fascism.

    A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

  165. #165 by cav on February 18, 2009 - 6:11 pm

    Rush sez we spent the last seven years comparing GW to a chimp. Aside from any derrogation of the chimpanzee generis, it have been better to compare the chimp to HITLER!

  166. #166 by cav on February 18, 2009 - 6:13 pm

    I want the editing feature back!

  167. #167 by cav on February 20, 2009 - 7:46 am

    Revolking Godwins law, meh.

    How safe are your second amendment rights? The FBI did more background checks on gun purchases in January than in any month in the last decade. The Supreme Court of Indiana has given the go ahead to a lawsuit by the city of Gary against gun makers. The lawsuit seeks to hold gun makers liable for deaths caused by guns. They say it is gun maker negligence that allows guns to get into the hands of criminals.

    Are gunmakers promoting their product in the same way tobacco companies are? And, what could they possible do to make it to guns are so constructed that they can only be used by the sane (not criminal) among us?

  168. #168 by Cliff Lyon on February 20, 2009 - 8:15 am

    Cav, Thanks for the heads up on edit. I guess I spaced it in the last upgrade.

    Ask and thou shalt receive

  169. #169 by jdberger on February 20, 2009 - 1:31 pm

    “revolking Godwin’s law….”

    That’s a fabulous unintentional pun….

    Oh Cav – you’re funny – even when you don’t mean to be.

  170. #170 by cav on February 20, 2009 - 9:42 pm

    I’ve been sitting on that quip for two days, so the retraction of Godwins Law ought to mean something. And yes, while I did notice a typo, the pun escaped me til you pointed it out. Good eye.

    But since, I really do resonate with both you and BobS around the gun issue, I was interested in your take on the Indiana case. I think it’s gonna be a tough sell for reasons suggested by my following questions.

    Now try to contain your mirth,.. just a little.

  171. #171 by Bob S. on February 21, 2009 - 11:40 am

    Cav,

    The lawsuit seeks to hold gun makers liable for deaths caused by guns.

    Automobile makers aren’t sue when people drive their cars into crowds and kill several people, right?
    Heck, when people drink and drive, automobile makers aren’t sued are they?
    How about when crooks use cars for get away vehicles and people die in crashes caused by the criminals. Automobile makers aren’t sued for their products being used in criminal manner.

    Are gunmakers promoting their product in the same way tobacco companies are?

    I don’t see gun manufacturers lying about the addictive nature of their product, how those products have been manipulated to increase addiction. There really isn’t a correlation between tobacco companies and firearm manufacturers regarding law suits.

    And, what could they possible do to make it to guns are so constructed that they can only be used by the sane (not criminal) among us?

    Apply the same question to cars, or tire irons, or alcohol. Is there anything that can be done to stop the “insane” or criminal from using cars? Alcohol interlocks are common requirements for habitual drunk drivings, people find ways around them.

    There are biometric sensors in the works, but once set to an individual those sensors can’t tell the mental state. Or the reason the firearm is being used.

    What those biometric sensors do is fail often. Would you want to depend on a mechanical sensor in the middle of a home invasion? I wouldn’t.

    Hope this answers your questions.

  172. #172 by Bob S. on February 21, 2009 - 11:49 am

    By the way…..to answer this:

    How safe are your second amendment rights?

    Consider this:

    Guardsmen to conduct urban training at Arcadia in April

    The Carroll National Guard unit will train on urban military operations by holding a four-day exercise at Arcadia.

    The purpose of the April 2-5 drill will be to gather intelligence, then search for and apprehend a suspected weapons dealer, according to Sgt. Mike Kots, readiness NCO for Alpha Company.

    Citizens, law enforcement, media and other supporters will participate.

    Troops will spend Thursday, April 2, staging at a forward operations base at Carroll. The next day company leaders will conduct reconnaissance and begin patrolling the streets of Arcadia to identify possible locations of the weapons dealer.

    The primary phase will be done Saturday, April 4, when convoys will be deployed from Carroll to Arcadia. Pictures of the arms dealer will be shown in Arcadia, and soldiers will go door to door asking if residents have seen the suspect.

    Wonder if trouble starts in America just exactly who will be considered a “weapons dealer”, don’t you?

    The primary phase will be done Saturday, April 4, when convoys will be deployed from Carroll to Arcadia. Pictures of the arms dealer will be shown in Arcadia, and soldiers will go door to door asking if residents have seen the suspect.

    Soldiers will knock only at households that have agreed to participate in the drill, Kots noted.

    “Once credible intelligence has been gathered,” said Kots, “portions of the town will be road-blocked and more in-depth searches of homes and vehicles will be conducted in accordance with the residents’ wishes.

    “One of the techniques we use in today’s political environment is cordon and knock,” Kots explained. “We ask for the head of the household, get permission to search, then have them open doors and cupboards. The homeowner maintains control. We peer over their shoulder, and the soldier uses the homeowner’s body language and position to protect him.

    Today, during the exercise they ask permission….in the future, during riots or another Katrina….will they be so polite, will they follow the law? The cops in New Orleans during Katrina didn’t follow the law.

    During this phase of the operation, troops will interact with residents and media while implementing crowd-control measures and possibly treating and evacuating injured persons.

    The unit will use a Blackhawk helicopter for overhead command and control, and to simulate medevacs.

    The drill will culminate in the apprehension of the suspected arms dealer.

    Alpha Company will conduct a review of the drill on Sunday, April 5.

    A meeting to give residents more information and accept volunteers will be held 7 p.m. Monday, March 2, in the Arcadia American Legion hall.

    Kots said the exercise will replace Alpha Company’s weekend drill for April.

    “We have a lot of extended drills this coming year,” he added.

    In addition to surveillance, searching and apprehension, the exercise will also give the troops valuable experience in stability, support, patrol, traffic control, vehicle searches and other skills needed for deployment in an urban environment.

    “This exercise will improve the real-life operational skills of the unit,” said Kots. “And it will hopefully improve the public’s understanding of military operations.”

    The pre-drill work with residents is as important at the drill itself.

    “It will be important for us to gain the trust and confidence of the residents of Arcadia,” said Kots. “We will need to identify individuals that are willing to assist us in training by allowing us to search their homes and vehicles and to participate in role-playing.”

    “We really want to get as much information out there as possible, because this operation could be pretty intrusive to the people of Arcadia.”

  173. #173 by cav on February 21, 2009 - 5:41 pm

    Bob S, once again, your thoughtful responses have hit their mark.

    In the 60’s, when I was in the military, we were part of an exercise much like the one you describe. Many of us thoughtfully petitioned that; though we were in the military and therefore had no mind of our own, it was our belief and conviction, that this side of outright urban rioting, we would just as soon stay in our barraks. Our wishes were respected.

    We’ve come a long way since then. But I still believe that the guys and gals in uniform ought to retain their sense of community, right and wrong, before blindly accepting assignments. Individual responsibility again. While it may be seen as treasonous or cowardly, it is neither – just a message from one citizen to another that perhaps the suggested direction requires some thoughtful adjustment. Soldiers are tools, but many of those tools (not all) are still imbued with a conscience, a voice and a legal right to use both. That has been proven, even though the stories are not often told.

    Thanks for your response.

  174. #174 by jdberger on February 22, 2009 - 11:09 pm

    The suit in Gary is moot. Thanks to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

    Ask Jack Weinstein.

  175. #175 by cav on February 23, 2009 - 7:50 am

    Thank you too, Jdberber.

  176. #176 by Uncle Rico on March 19, 2009 - 8:24 pm

    Opinion by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Have not had time to digest or even read yet, but the court has enjoined the Bush Administration’s final rule allowing concealed weapons in National Parks. The stay is based upon a probable violation of NEPA. Here is the opinion.

    A couple of interesting statements by Judge Kollar-Kotelly:

    “Because the Court finds that the Final Rule is the product of Defendants’ astoundingly flawed process, the Court holds that Plaintiffs are highly
    likely to prevail on the merits of their NEPA claims.”

    “In reaching this decision, the Court emphasizes that, despite many of the arguments raised by the parties, intervenor-movants, and amici curiae, this case is not a platform for resolving disputes concerning the merits of concealed weapons or laws related to concealed weapons that are appropriately directed to the other branches of government. The Court is bound to consider only whether Defendants have complied with Congress’ statutes and regulations, and not whether Defendants have made wise judgments in any normative sense. Accordingly, the Court expresses no view as to the merits of any laws or regulations related to concealed weapons or firearms generally.”

    -Rico

  177. #177 by jdberger on March 19, 2009 - 9:01 pm

    “..astoundingly flawed process…” That’s quite a statement.

    Interesting. I skimmed the decision and didn’t see how Brady established standing.

    Either way, it’s a long fight. I have faith that we’ll win. After all, it’s a common sense issue.

  178. #178 by jdberger on March 19, 2009 - 9:03 pm

    Ah…the standing argument is covered at the end. Whoops.

  179. #179 by mike w. on June 15, 2009 - 10:31 am

    Guns aren’t my issue one way or the other, but when a thread starts out with terms like “gun freaks” and “pond scum,” I don’t expect a good discussion.

    Yup, it gives you a good idea of what the anti-rights crowd here thinks of us and of the 2A. It also illustrates that insults are all they have, since we have the upper hand as far as evidence, logic, and rational discussion are concerned.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: