Thread: Guns in National Parks

Originally Posted by igitur55

You do not currently enjoy the right to carry firearms in National Parks. That is not covered completely by the Second Amendment,

" ......the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Sounds complete to me.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

" ......the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Sounds complete to me.

And yet it isn't. See also: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble ... ," and yet sometimes it does. Why is that?

Or: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ... ," but sometimes they are. Why are they?

Constitutional law is mighty fertile ground for discussion and analysis. Don't make me go there!

Oh its quite complete, the things you have mentioned are infringements, no matter who did them or why.

Originally Posted by igitur55

And yet it isn't. See also: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble ... ," and yet sometimes it does. Why is that?

Or: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ... ," but sometimes they are. Why are they?

Constitutional law is mighty fertile ground for discussion and analysis. Don't make me go there!

Actually all these points you make here are in my view a gross violation of my rights. We should not tolerate them. In my view the reset button should have been pressed some time ago.

Originally Posted by igitur55

OK, so much of what you have to offer is fear again (please see prior posts) ... the female friend whose life was threatened but quite possibly saved by her dog (not a gun) from a credible threat. And the rest is about rights, and how I am forbidden from trampling on them. However, I think you will agree that that is the very issue in this thread. You do not currently enjoy the right to carry firearms in National Parks. That is not covered completely by the Second Amendment, any more than you are allowed to carry a firearm in my home (you may not by the way, even though you are welcome to bring one or more straight razors--go figure). After the President signs this new Bill into law, you will have a legal (though not necessarily Constitutional) right to carry one or more of your firearms in any National Park.

I offer fear? You are the one who stated that they fear me.

The friends is an anecdote, a personal experience that highlights the principal at hand. It also isn't recorded in any of the statistics recorded or used in this discussion.

It might also interest you to know that I never knew guns were not allowed in national parks until recently. I discovered that on several occasions I was breaking a rather serious law. Amazingly enough my gun apparently didn't know that it had became an outlaw either no neither of us went on a rampage and stole anyone's "bling". What a catastrophe narrowly averted there.

As far as me not carrying in your home.....you would never know. Thats the point. Everywhere you walk you might be surrounded by people carrying guns. Not fear, fact. At least in a National park, if not your home town, some of those people will be trained law abiding citizens who are willing to act in the defense of the common good against those who desire to do harm.

If I had grown up in the gun culture of the US, maybe I'd have another opinion on this issue; but from the outside looking in, it's pretty weird. This notion that someone out there is going to carry a gun illegally anyway and, sooner or later, attack you with it? It's kind of like Frankenstein's monster: it got too big to control. The idea of having the "freedom" to arm up as much as you like and carry handguns around is a slippery slope leading to more and more people feeling free to carry them, yes -- but not the breathe-easy kind of free.

It's all fine and well to arm oneself against the bandits that lie in wait in the woods. I am from the South and the small town where I grew up and lived is smack dab in the Appalachian mountains on the Virginia/ Kentucky border more or less.

I have never heard of a significant number of people falling victim to criminals out there waiting for victims to walk by them on the trial. So the threat level doesn't appear to me to be there in the National park system. Granted I have heard of it. But mostly the drop was on the people anyway.

Now a greater probability of occurrence is Billy Bob packin' heat and his Daddies .45 and a case of Coors meeting up with Jimmy Joe and his brand new .357. Now we add the alcohol and then we add a political argument and then we have ourselves a gun fight.

Out here in California change the names to Jose and Tyrell but you get the same result.

I personally don't care to go in the woods or to Yosemite knowing every paranoid person there could be carrying a firearm. I don't feel safer knowing someone might try to play out his Dirty Harry fantasy and shoot me in the process of trying to save someone else.

I've owned more guns than most people so it's not like I'm a rabid anti gunner. But the concept of mutually assured destruction doesn't really work well in the world with firearms and the public.

Most people don't know how to use the firearms they carry around feeling all tough guy and wind up hurting others and not the bad guys anyway.

I don't think this is a good idea at all.

Originally Posted by igitur55

I think you also assume the risk, when you enter a National Park where there be bears (not to mention pick-a-nick baskets).

Oregon has a fantastic law called the "Inherent risk law."

The basic crux of the law is that if you engage in any activity which carries an OBVIOUS inherent risk, you cannot hold anyone else liable for any injuries or damages.

Like many laws, it's vague and hard to prove a case in either direction, but at least it's on the books. For example, I once went to a ranch that did long distance trail rides, and they had a big notice board quoting the inherent risk law and warning people that any activity involving a 2500 lb animal with steel-shod hooves carries a variety of inherent risks to personal health and safety. The vagueness comes in because if you break your neck because your saddle slipped sideways, was that an inherent risk, or negligence on the part of the ranch hand who put the saddle on?

Before I say this, I'd like to say that I do think people should be able to carry firearms in state parks, and I think the 2nd amendment should be replaced with one in modern terms so that it actually does what the NRA would like us to believe it does.

That being said...

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

" ......the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Sounds complete to me.

The complete text of the 2nd amendment is as follows:

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.

People have this nasty habit of leaving the first half out.

Yes, it does say that people have the right to keep and bear arms, and that this right should not be infringed upon. However, it says this within the context of the need to form a militia for state security.

The problem, is that in modern day America, there is rarely if ever the need to form a militia, and I can't think of a single instance of one being formed for the protection of the state in the last 100 years. Also, we have many firearms of a nature that was never dreamed of when the 2nd amendment was written. The whole amendment is outdated to the point if total irrelevance.

While we like to think of the bill of rights being concrete and all encompassing, their interpretation is the right and responsibility of the US Supreme Court, which has repeatedly ruled that no constitutional right extends to the point where it's exercise infringes on the liberty or safety of other law abiding citizens.

The easiest examples of this are laws about slander, libel, and shouting "fire" in a theater, which technically fly in the face of the 1st amendment.

Restricting the right to carry a firearm in a particular place (federal post offices, court rooms, county jails, schools, ad infinitum) because the risk to public safety created by carrying firearms in those places outweighs the benefit to personal safety, is a well established practice which is approved by the supreme court.

Of course, we could debate whether some of these restriction do more to protect or endanger the public, but that's a whole separate topic.

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

Before I say this, I'd like to say that I do think people should be able to carry firearms in state parks, and I think the 2nd amendment should be replaced with one in modern terms so that it actually does what the NRA would like us to believe it does.

That being said...




The complete text of the 2nd amendment is as follows:



People have this nasty habit of leaving the first half out.

Yes, it does say that people have the right to keep and bear arms, and that this right should not be infringed upon. However, it says this within the context of the need to form a militia for state security.

The problem, is that in modern day America, there is rarely if ever the need to form a militia, and I can't think of a single instance of one being formed for the protection of the state in the last 100 years. Also, we have many firearms of a nature that was never dreamed of when the 2nd amendment was written. The whole amendment is outdated to the point if total irrelevance.

While we like to think of the bill of rights being concrete and all encompassing, their interpretation is the right and responsibility of the US Supreme Court, which has repeatedly ruled that no constitutional right extends to the point where it's exercise infringes on the liberty or safety of other law abiding citizens.

The easiest examples of this are laws about slander, libel, and shouting "fire" in a theater, which technically fly in the face of the 1st amendment.

Restricting the right to carry a firearm in a particular place (federal post offices, court rooms, county jails, schools, ad infinitum) because the risk to public safety created by carrying firearms in those places outweighs the benefit to personal safety, is a well established practice which is approved by the supreme court.

Of course, we could debate whether some of these restriction do more to protect or endanger the public, but that's a whole separate topic.

The first half of that sentence does not negate the second half of the sentence, there was no nasty habit involved, I simply do not want to waste my time with needless verbiage. Militias were being called up as late as WWII as I recall, there may have been later call ups I cant recall. And truthfully, I dont trust anybody enough to re write the Constitution.

Even I would want to carry one when backpacking in a national park in the middle of nowhere. The truth of it is: you are all alone, and you won't easily be able to escape a situation where you are threatened by a predator (human or animal).

And if my daughter would go backpacking alone in a national park (I hope not), I'd want her to carry one too, and know how to use it. Carrying a weapon in such places is just good sense. It has nothing to do with being afraid, and everything with being careful.

EDIT: I am not afraid of sharp blades either. Yet I am careful when handling them.