Comments on: National parks and guns: When to carry?

By: Alvin Stewart

Alvin Stewart — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:01:48 +0000

I’m a US citizen that pays his taxes, pays his debts, and obey the laws of the land. I also support the United States Cnstitution as it stands. It wasn’t written to be a list of suggestions subject to modification based on some special interest because they don’t see it that way. If we keep eroding the ownership/carry rights of law abiding citizens we have forsaken the crafters of the Constitution. A law abiding citizen didn’t shoot James Brady. I’m sorry a wacko shot him. Gun control laws are not going to stop people like this or gang bangers from obtaining and illegally using guns. Sara, I’m sorry but get over it. As cold as this sounds your husband was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was hanging around a target and an idiot was nearby with a plan. Does anyone truly think that fighting to take away Second Amendment gun owner/carrier rights is going to keep Donnell from doing a drive-by on Jerrome cause Jerrome be hittin’ on Donnel’s girlfriend Kenisha? This bill’s rider was to allow law abiding citizens to carry firemarms in National Parks with the proper permits. They don’t just give out these permits cause you wearin’ the right gang colors. I fly fish in Yellowstone National Park and would feel more comfortable having a sidearm in addition to my bear spray. Unfortunately this is uproar is not about firearms in NP’s. It’s about bleeding heart, tree hugging, gun grabbing, bed wetting, bugger eating cry baby liberals wanting to undermine the very principles this country was founded on. Before closing a little disclaimer is in order. I’m southern, have all my teeth, don’t have a confederate flag in my yard, have a tested 138 IQ, am not a current NRA member, drive a Prius and not a pick-up truck, and have no agenda but to reel in the nauseating liberalism that’s killing this country. All of the above thoughts represent my personal opinion guaranteed me by the same Constitution the bed wetters are trying to destroy. Enough (probably more than enough) said.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 06:18:06 +0000

The first time someone knocks down a grizzly in yellowstone with 2 clips from a .45 we are going to hear libs screaming there arses off. I am going to use bear spray in my left hand and if that dosent work then ill level the animal with my .45 in my right. I think we should make an effort to repel the animal with other means. As it stands I think there is some big time pealties for discharging a firearm into an animal or even warning shots in national parks. This needs to be clarified.

So if attacked shoot the nearest lib so the bear will eat him and not you. Just be sure to find the bullet in the bear poo and burry it.

By: george

george — Thu, 21 May 2009 04:16:24 +0000

It is the same method used by zelot liberals to cram socialism down our throats, Kevin. as for the credit card bill, it transfers the onus on those that dont pay to those that pay their bils on time, so i think the bill itself is a shame. Urban areas are safe? Shootings at restaurants, schools, malls, parks, etc, i think not so safe. Call a cop? Sure , if the shooter will only wait for them to arrive before firing. If congress was full of Tom Coburn’s we would all be so much better off, he strives to maintain our personal freedoms for us and to stop run-away spending, pork, etc. The Bill of Rights was added to the constitution to protect the INDIVIDUALS right’s from and oppressive gov’s attempt to subdue us. The 2nd gives us each the right to bear arms, and it doesn’t say there must be a compelling reason for us to do so. Steve, you have a right to not bear arms, but that doesn’t give you the right to take our arms from us. Instead of going after the law-abiding citizens, push for more-stricter laws on gun totting crooks, lets lock them away for a long long time!

By: kevin

kevin — Thu, 21 May 2009 02:38:54 +0000

VETO VETO VETO!! This is Exhibit A as to why Tom Coburn should be voted out next election. A ridiculous amendment to an unrelated bill…a bill that would otherwise offer excellent and historic consumer protection. I hope the president vetoes this abortion of legislation.

By: Ron Talacker

Ron Talacker — Thu, 21 May 2009 01:33:07 +0000

Doug, there are currently no restrictions on carrying weapons in nat’l forests or wildlife refuges, as neither are administered by the NPS. As for private property, it is not illegal to carry even if it is posted, all they can do is ask you to leave.

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 20 May 2009 22:53:06 +0000

As far as concealed carry on private property (The Oklahoma City Memorial for example), it is legal unless signs are posted otherwise. I have my concealed carry and usually leave the weapon in my vehicle or motorcycle, but I always have to be thoughtful of having the weapon if I go through the Wichita Mountain Refuge. Presently, it is my understanding that it would be illegal to carry the loaded weapon through the refuge in your vehicle. Many states with concealed carry laws (Colorado for example) have many national parks and forests and it would be unreasonable to have to break the weapon down to go through a national park or forest. Most of these parks are hundreds of miles away for us Oklahomans. So we have to travel on interstates to get there. I feel more vulnerable on the interstate than I do a national park, but what do I do with the weapon once I’m off the interstate? So the new law would just be convenient if nothing else. With the rise of animal attacks (not only bears and mountain lions, but also coyotes and bobcats, etc.) I would feel safer to hike or travel in the larger national parks or forests. As a concealed carry owner its not about my need to carry the weapon but my right to carry it.

By: Ron Talacker

Ron Talacker — Wed, 20 May 2009 22:31:17 +0000

I don’t know why the burden should fall on legal gun owners to show a need to carry a gun, especially in a park. The reverse should be true: show us why it shouldn’t be legal. What is so special about a park?

Trying to grasp for a “need” to exercise a Constitutionally-guaranteed right is the wrong approach and only festers a sense of government enpowerment at the expense of the liberty of the citizenry.

As for urban areas, yes, those places rarely see dangerous activity or violent crime.

By: Mary

Mary — Wed, 20 May 2009 22:12:12 +0000

You go Tom Coburn! I’m tired of the lawmakers trying to take away our rights. When you take the guns away from the people, the only ones that will have them are the crooks. We need to be able to defend ourselves, our homes & our families from the people who are out there to do us harm. I grew up learning how to shoot a gun and how to take care of one. My children grew up the same way. I have a daughter who in the National Guard and she is an expert in shooting. Her children know how to handle a gun as well. If the lawmakers keep making laws that take our rights away, this country is doomed!

By: Nancy Coggins

Nancy Coggins — Wed, 20 May 2009 21:48:57 +0000

People carrying guns onto the Memorial site or into the Memorial Museum has never been a problem, but the policy is the same for both the Outdoor Symbolic Memorial and the Memorial Museum. Concealed weapons are not allowed on the private property, except as approved by law.

The Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museum is owned and operated by a private 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Because we are privately run, we are not subject to the same regulations as the National Park System Parks.

By: steve p

steve p — Wed, 20 May 2009 21:41:50 +0000

And for those innocent victims of gun violence it is their own tough luck, sorry you are dead or maimed. We will punish the shooter though. Unless of course we like the shooter, or he is famous or he/she has a great lawyer, or we don’t like the dead guy.

Those who do not believe guns are the answer have no rights anymore. We just have to hide out of the way until the shooting stops. Which will be never.