HR 1897 by Ron Paul: National Parks Carry

[spc]

Buckeye Firearms Association - HR1897, Carry in National Parks: A bill whose time is past due
Buckeye Firearms Association - HR1897, Carry in National Parks: A bill whose time is past due

National Politics Send to a Friend When you're done reading this story, please send it to a friend!

Digg digg del.icio.us del.icio.us Stumbleupon StumbleUpon Add to Technorati Favorites Technorati


By Tim Inwood

United States Representative Ron Paul has introduced a bill that I hope gets some traction. HR1897 would restore our ability to carry firearms in the National Parks for our defense.

How important is this? Every year we hear some terrible story of someone getting mauled or killed by wild animals on Federally owned land - land that we are encouraged to visit and pay for, but where we are forbidden the ability to defend ourselves. This, to me, is insane.

Animal attacks are not rare. We have been hearing tragic examples for ages. I have been paying fairly close attention to this issue since 1994 when Rush Limbaugh brought up the sad story of Barbara Schoener.

Click 'Read More' for the entire commentary.



On April 23, 1994, this 40 year-old woman was out jogging. She was attacked and killed by an 82-pound mountain lion in El Dorado County, California. She left behind two children and a husband. The state hunted down and shot the killer cat. As it turned out, the cat had cubs. Rush made the story a national one when he heard that animal rights activists had started a fund for the mountain lion's cubs, and that they had raised more money than had been raised for the dead woman’s children. Upset by this, Rush did a fundraiser for the motherless Schoener children to make sure they would be able to go to college.

More recently, in January of this year, we have the story of Jim Hamm, who was attacked by a mountain lion while hiking in California. Luckily, his wife Nell was able to club the animal to the point it ran away. The seventy year old man was mauled badly, but he will survive.

Here in the Eastern U.S. we have an example from 2006 - another animal attack, this time in Tennessee. A black bear killed one little girl, and seriously injured her mother and little brother. These poor people visiting from Ohio were not prepared for what happened. Susan Cenkus, her son Luke and daughter Elora were in a pool of water below a waterfall in the Cherokee National Forest. A huge black bear attacked them, grabbing the small boy by the head. The mother fought it off, and was badly mauled by the animal for her efforts. The little girl ran into the woods. Other campers joined in the fight beating the bear with sticks and rocks. Finally, the bear retreated, only after mauling Susan Cenkus and leaving her two year-old boy with severe head and brain injuries. Hours later the six year old little girl was found dead in the woods with the bear standing over her.

Sadly, the official reaction from park rangers and the Federal government is along the lines of “Black bears usually won’t attack people and usually retreat from humans.” Right… Sadly there are too many examples of other humans being attacked nationwide for this rubbish answer to fly.

Back in May 2000, Glenda Ann Bradley was attacked by two female black bears. This poor woman was found by her husband who had been fishing nearby. Glenda was dead and partially eaten, the offending animals still feeding as her husband approached them. This happened in the “safe” Great Smoky Mountain National Park, where we are told we don’t need to carry firearms for defense.

In August 2002, a black bear walked into a camp in Fallburg, New York. It went right up on the cabin’s porch, grabbing a 5-month-old child out of a carriage, carrying it off into the woods and killing the child. An Arizona teenager was attacked at camp by a bear that had been tagged and relocated by the government. An 81 year old woman was attacked by a black bear in her own home in the Adirondack mountains six years ago.

There is not enough space here to relate all the stories making the case for HR1897. I will, however, tell a story which happened to a member of my family. My father’s youngest brother has found an idyllic vacation spot in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park. The Highland Condominiums have a commanding view of Gatlinburg below, and a lovely view of the mountains. My own family has gone down on his recommendation and we thoroughly love the place. However, on a trip two years ago, my uncle had a close call with a bear just yards from the condo he was renting. One evening he ran down to throw rubbish in the dumpster. The dumpster is behind the parking lot of this particular condo unit. It is surrounded by a high wooden fence, and my uncle tossed the bag over the fence into the dumpster. Out jumped a very upset black bear, which roared at him. My uncle, who was in his late 50s at this time, ran like a teenager back to the elevator and escaped the upset and hungry bruin. I thank God my uncle did not turn out like the other poor folks in the examples I cited above.

Animals are not the only danger either. Two-legged predators also roam our National parks. Three women were brutally murdered in 1999 while visiting Yosemite National Park.

Sadly, this is also not an isolated incident. Clearly any of the above incidents would have turned out differently had the victims been armed. It is morally repugnant that our government has taken the attitude that the well-being of predatory animals is more important than the lives of the taxpayers who make it possible for such parks to exist. HR1897 is a bill that should have been passed into law years ago. I urge you to contact your Representatives and Senators in Washington D.C. and insist they support this measure. Then call President Bush at (202) 456-1111, and ask him to get on board. Kudos to Rep. Ron Paul for introducing this measure.

Tim Inwood is the current Legislative Liaison and Past President of the Clinton County Farmers and Sportsmen Association, an Endowment Member of the NRA, Life Member of OGCA, and a volunteer for Buckeye Firearms Association.


spc

[packnrat]

not to sound unfair or bad, but a woman has a "time" of the month, were there is a "smell", we as humans can not smell it but a bear can...from miles away, and this attracts them to come and eat what ever they find.

so just based on this people should be allowed to have on there persons a gun of a "good" calaber. (not just close by, but on them).


when out walking in the woods one does not out run a bear,


just need to out run your friend.

[spc]

Well said packnrat and thanks for bringing this subject back to the forefront.

spc

[Mtn. Medic]

It's not just bears and lions one needs to worry about while visiting our national parks. Remember this?
CNN - FBI: Handyman confessed Yosemite murder - July 26, 1999

[spc]

Very true.

What about all of the Mexican Nationals growing hemp in the wilderness areas all over the southwest. These guys are armed and dangerous (and may not speak english).

spc

[CCWInstructor]

Parks

The Department of the Interior has released its long awaited regulatory reform proposals for National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges. The proposed regulations will be open for public comment for the next 60 days. It is critical that gunowners let their voices be heard on this regulation change.

As I had expected, the proposed regulations are worded to be as restrictive as possible while still trying to answer the primary complaint. Specifically, the proposed change limits firearms that “may” be carried, to those lawfully carried concealed under state law. Lawful open carry is denied. The proposal also specifically exempts buildings and facilities from lawful carry and it predicates its rules upon those of similar state lands rather than general state law. So in states like Virginia, where gunowners are fighting to regain their rights in state parks, the fight would automatically extend into National Parks. If a state wants to prohibit guns in a National Park, they should have to pass a law to do it.

Here is the actual text of the proposal for National Parks:

§ 2.4 Weapons, traps and nets.

* * * * * (Added to the end of a complex litany of restrictions and exceptions)

(h) A person may possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded, and operable firearms within a national park area in the same manner, and to the same extent, that a person may lawfully possess, carry, and transport concealed, loaded and operable firearms in any state park, or any similar unit of state land, in the state in which the federal park, or that portion thereof, is located, provided that such possession, carrying and transporting otherwise complies with applicable federal and state law.

The proposed reg change for National Wildlife Refuges is virtually identical except for the types of state lands that it cites as comparable.

It is obvious that the bureaucrats who wrote these proposed regulations simply don’t understand the fundamental principles involved. It is ridiculous that the Department of the Interior would promulgate these convoluted half-measures when a simple statement adopting the laws of the host state regarding the possession and carry of firearms would solve the problem. I think the DOI is concerned about not being able to prosecute someone they catch sneaking through the woods with a scoped 30-06 as a poacher. By limiting the exemption to “concealed” weapons, they think they are bypassing that problem and they are ignoring the other problems such a limitation creates.

We have not yet formulated our official response as there are many factors to be considered and we would like to coordinate our efforts with other rights organizations. We will post our response as soon as we can get it put together.

In the mean time, here is the official information about posting comments:

You may submit comments, identified by the number 1024-AD70 by any of the following methods:

Electronically via the Federal rulemaking portal: redirect.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Mail:
Public Comments Processing, Attn: 1024-AD70; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203

Hand-deliver: 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203

Public Availability of Comments

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment – including your personal identifying information – may be made publicly available at any time.

While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Lawyer, (202) 208-3181, Mark_Lawyer@ios.doi.gov.

I'll send out an Alert in a day or two with sample comment language.

[spc]

Thanks for the update.

It is not surprising that the DOI is continuing to make life as difficult as possible for those who CCW legally. I wonder just how many hours and taxpayer $s were involved with trying to figure out how to word this new regulation.

spc

[Mtn. Medic]

Originally Posted by spc

Very true.

What about all of the Mexican Nationals growing hemp in the wilderness areas all over the southwest. These guys are armed and dangerous (and may not speak english).

spc

Brother... They ain't just in the southwest...

[spc]

Originally Posted by Mtn. Medic

Brother... They ain't just in the southwest...

I know they are attempting to grow wherever they can find a suitable location, and god knows that plant will grow almost anywhere.

They are just one of the threats we face in our national parks, but a substancial one.

spc