Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Firearms (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)
- - National parks gun ban unconstitutional (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=269038)

Big_Rob | 05-28-2008 03:51 PM
National parks gun ban unconstitutional Jerry Patterson: National parks gun ban unconstitutional Web Posted: 05/27/2008 11:34 PM CDT Special to the San Antonio Express-News Recent displays of my Second Amendment rights have earned some harsh words from editorial writers at some of Texas' big city newspapers, including the San Antonio Express-News. I've been criticized for acknowledging I carried a concealed handgun, as is my right, on recent visits to Big Bend National Park. A National Park Service rule prohibits carrying a loaded, concealed handgun. �Evidently, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson was absent from school the day the Constitution was covered,� wrote the San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board. While that's an awfully cute jab, the reality is I've learned the Constitution over the course of a lifetime � not just one day. I've taken oaths to uphold and protect our Constitution � as a U.S. Marine and as a state elected official. So look at the facts. The ban on loaded firearms in National Park is not a law. It is a rule enacted by unelected bureaucrats of the National Park Service. There was no legislative process � these bureaucrats arbitrarily terminated this Constitutional right. Fortunately, the clearly unconstitutional National Park Service rules on possessing firearms in federal parks are changing. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne recently proposed new rules that would respect state firearm laws and the Second Amendment. Nonetheless, some editorial boards oppose allowing citizens the right to self-defense. Law-abiding Texans, they say, can't be trusted with guns and don't need them in the park, anyway, because no one else can have a gun. On a recent hike in Big Bend, I found two expended 9mm shell casings, along with a discarded pack of Mexican cigarettes. The Texas Department of Public Safety ballistics lab confirmed two different weapons fired these casings. How could this be? There are no guns in Big Bend, because that's the rule, right? Tell that to the rafters who were ambushed and killed several years ago in an area adjacent to the Big Bend known as Colorado Canyon. Tell that to the woman whose body, suffering from blunt force trauma to the head, was found floating in five feet of water at Amistad National Recreation Area. In 2006, the most recent year available for statistics, the National Park Service says there were 116,588 reported offenses in national parks. That includes 11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults. With the increasingly violent criminal activity along the Texas-Mexico border, carrying a firearm in remote areas along the border, including Big Bend National Park, is a choice every citizen should have. Express-News editorial writers assert the current proposal to rescind the ban on lawfully carried firearms in national parks is a �solution in search of a problem.� But the problem is very real. Americans are guaranteed our right to keep and bear arms. That right is unassailable and inviolate. To rescind that right when one crosses an arbitrary boundary into a national park is an unconstitutional act no different than rescinding our Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure. As an elected official, I take an oath that I will �to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God.� I do not regard such affirmations as anachronistic formalities. I guess you can call me an old-fashioned believer in the wisdom of those who penned the Bill of Rights and not much of a believer in the wisdom of editorial boards. http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/...n.2690f28.html

Twisted Avatar | 05-28-2008 04:51 PM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional Nonetheless, some editorial boards oppose allowing citizens the right to self-defense. Law-abiding Texans, they say, can't be trusted with guns and don't need them in the park, anyway, because no one else can have a gun They can kiss my silver @$$ if they think for one second I am going to reliquish my right to protect myself and my loved one from harm. because some muckety mucks have issues about TRUST. If you have a problem with it... STAY IN YA DAM HOUSE AND DONT COME OUT. WAIT FOR THE CRIMINALS AND SHOCKTROOPERS TO KICK YOUR DOOR IN. YOU CAN "TRUST" THEM NOT TO TAKE ANY MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE. IDIOTS......

Black Blade | 05-28-2008 10:08 PM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional And to think that I regularly drive thru Yellowstone with my Glock in the console and SKS behind the back seat. Hmmm...

EireGoBragh | 05-28-2008 10:17 PM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional I thought I read recently were they changed this, and made it OK to carry in a NP?

Twisted Avatar | 05-28-2008 10:30 PM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Blade (Post 1122598) And to think that I regularly drive thru Yellowstone with my Glock in the console and SKS behind the back seat. Hmmm...
+1 Better to have it and not need it ........ then vice versa Laws be dammed when they trump commonsense. T

EireGoBragh | 05-29-2008 09:43 AM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Avatar (Post 1122620) +1 Better to have it and not need it ........ then vice versa Laws be dammed when they trump commonsense. T
Look at how many people have been raped and murdered in NP's, think about it, you're out in the wilderness(basically) and some low-life comes up on you at night? they'll probably have a gun...what are you going to do to protect your family?

Twisted Avatar | 05-29-2008 10:04 AM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional Quote:
Originally Posted by EireGoBragh (Post 1123042) Look at how many people have been raped and murdered in NP's, think about it, you're out in the wilderness(basically) and some low-life comes up on you at night? they'll probably have a gun...what are you going to do to protect your family?
If the NP rangers have there way 2 options...... Foul lauguage. Or pleas of take what you want just let us live. or........ How about the the muzzle flash from a G17 loaded with hollowpoint ammo cutting through your frame cause you didnt expect to run up on somebody who actually beilves they have the right to protect themselves. option 3 sounds about right to me T

EireGoBragh | 05-29-2008 01:01 PM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Avatar (Post 1123077) If the NP rangers have there way 2 options...... Foul lauguage. Or pleas of take what you want just let us live. or........ How about the the muzzle flash from a G17 loaded with hollowpoint ammo cutting through your frame cause you didnt expect to run up on somebody who actually beilves they have the right to protect themselves. option 3 sounds about right to me T
Option 4) How 'bout a window in their head from my .44 BullDog Pug

Twisted Avatar | 05-29-2008 01:23 PM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional Quote:
Originally Posted by EireGoBragh (Post 1123325) Option 4) How 'bout a window in their head from my .44 BullDog Pug
Just as afffective. T

Codger | 05-29-2008 03:23 PM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional I slept in my car in a parking lot of the Grand Canyon back in "98. My older brother was with me and I had a Colt lightweight commander wedged between the seat and console. I awoke in the driver's seat at about 3am to someone tapping on the window and immediately grabbed the gun. As I looked out the window there was a Park trooper with his maglight and a readied gun. I left my hand where it was as asked through the closed window what was wrong. I didn't twitch. He asked why we were sleeping there and was satisfied with my answer. He then asked if there were any firearms in the car. Now his flashlight was pretty much focused on my hand that was between the seats holding onto the gun and I'm pretty sure he could see it (the gun). I opened my grip very slowly and inched my hand to the 3 O:Clock position on the steering wheel and said "No sir". At that point he said to be careful up here, wished us luck with our project, lowered his gun and drove away. Then I about had a heart attack.

JJ_ | 05-29-2008 03:31 PM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional Glad he was a sensible ranger. Nothing like a loaded wepon pointing at you to get the blood flowing...:D

Twisted Avatar | 05-29-2008 03:38 PM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ ShortStroke (Post 1123598) Glad he was a sensible ranger. Nothing like a loaded wepon pointing at you to get the blood flowing...:D
Indeed:wink: T

Codger | 05-29-2008 03:44 PM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ ShortStroke (Post 1123598) Glad he was a sensible ranger. Nothing like a loaded wepon pointing at you to get the blood flowing...:D
I've only been this close to being shot a few times before but they were all random. This guy had cause to shoot me by today's standards. I was very thankful but at the time had no idea what to do with my hand.

Mediocrates | 05-29-2008 11:33 PM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Avatar (Post 1122214) Nonetheless, some editorial boards oppose allowing citizens the right to self-defense. Law-abiding Texans, they say, can't be trusted with guns and don't need them in the park, anyway, because no one else can have a gun They can kiss my silver @$$ if they think for one second I am going to reliquish my right to protect myself and my loved one from harm. because some muckety mucks have issues about TRUST. If you have a problem with it... STAY IN YA DAM HOUSE AND DONT COME OUT. WAIT FOR THE CRIMINALS AND SHOCKTROOPERS TO KICK YOUR DOOR IN. YOU CAN "TRUST" THEM NOT TO TAKE ANY MORE THAN THEIR FAIR SHARE. IDIOTS......
The problem is that when the shocktroopers come, they won't come to your house. It will be either: a) your place of employment or b) stop you in your car Either case is game over. A person is essentially helpless in these situations. :dontknow: :shot:

wallew | 05-31-2008 04:41 PM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional Apparently you are all unaware that our national parks are now (AND HAVE BEEN FOR SOME TIME) UN Biospheres. When the Obama led the charge with Senate Bill S2433 and it is signed by Bush, this will implement the full ban on 'small arms and light weapons', along with a lot of other programmes, such as the Biodiversity treaty that is put forth by the UN. Basically it will move all rural folk into the big cities so they don't interfere wtih the 'migration patterns' of wildlife. BOHICA. Just do a Google search on UN MAB or UN Biosphere and you will read all you need to know. It's been around AT LEAST twenty years. Smile! So you think you gonna keep that piece after Obama and Bush have their way with us? Not unless you are ready to die. Which most are not.

Irons | 06-01-2008 07:36 PM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional My AR-15 has probably been in more National Parks than 90% of the American population has.:applause_

blueice | 06-01-2008 07:42 PM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional Big Rob, this is an important victory of rights among so many defeats...:top::top::top:usflag

Elvis | 06-01-2008 07:50 PM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Rob (Post 1122117) [SIZE=+2][B]Jerry Patterson: National parks gun ban unconstitutional The ban on loaded firearms in National Park is not a law. It is a rule enacted by unelected bureaucrats of the National Park Service. There was no legislative process � these bureaucrats arbitrarily terminated this Constitutional right.
The reporter, like many reporters, is an idiot. Not only that, he's more than an idiot, he's out and out BSing. The ban on loaded firearms in national parks is a law -- a federal regualtion that has the force and effect of law -- not a rule. You can't get arrested for breaking a rule. It is a part of Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, enacted by Congress, in full legislative process. While is may be fully against the Constitution, it was passed by Congress in front of everyone. If the idiot would have looked it up, he would have found: 36 CFR � 2.4 Weapons, traps and nets. (a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section and parts 7 (special regulations) and 13 (Alaska regulations), the following are prohibited: (i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net (ii) Carrying a weapon, trap or net (iii) Using a weapon, trap or net (2) Weapons, traps or nets may be carried, possessed or used: (i) At designated times and locations in park areas where: (A) The taking of wildlife is authorized by law in accordance with �2.2 of this chapter; (B) The taking of fish is authorized by law in accordance with �2.3 of this part. (ii) When used for target practice at designated times and at facilities or locations designed and constructed specifically for this purpose and designated pursuant to special regulations. (iii) Within a residential dwelling. For purposes of this subparagraph only, the term �residential dwelling� means a fixed housing structure which is either the principal residence of its occupants, or is occupied on a regular and recurring basis by its occupants as an alternate residence or vacation home. (3) Traps, nets and unloaded weapons may be possessed within a temporary lodging or mechanical mode of conveyance when such implements are rendered temporarily inoperable or are packed, cased or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use. (b) Carrying or possessing a loaded weapon in a motor vehicle, vessel or other mode of transportation is prohibited, except that carrying or possessing a loaded weapon in a vessel is allowed when such vessel is not being propelled by machinery and is used as a shooting platform in accordance with Federal and State law. (c) The use of a weapon, trap or net in a manner that endangers persons or property is prohibited. (d) The superintendent may issue a permit to carry or possess a weapon, trap or net under the following circumstances: (1) When necessary to support research activities conducted in accordance with �2.5. (2) To carry firearms for persons in charge of pack trains or saddle horses for emergency use. (3) For employees, agents or cooperating officials in the performance of their official duties. (4) To provide access to otherwise inaccessible lands or waters contiguous to a park area when other means of access are otherwise impracticable or impossible. Violation of the terms and conditions of a permit issued pursuant to this paragraph is prohibited and may result in the suspension or revocation of the permit. (e) Authorized Federal, State and local law enforcement officers may carry firearms in the performance of their official duties. (f) The carrying or possessing of a weapon, trap or net in violation of applicable Federal and State laws is prohibited. (g) The regulations contained in this section apply, regardless of land ownership, on all lands and waters within a park area that are under the legislative jurisdiction of the United States. [48 FR 30282, June 30, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 18450, Apr. 30, 1984; 52 FR 35240, Sept. 18, 1987] PS: Friends don't let friends carry nets.

Irons | 06-01-2008 08:39 PM
Re: National parks gun ban unconstitutional The AR-15 is for prarie dogs in Colorado when we finally get to our good friends ranch.If it takes 11 states and a dozen National Parks to get there, oh well!:D

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:23 AM. |

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM