|
Re: Photography, Guns, and National Parks?
[Re: Tony Bynum]
#13388
03/02/08 07:42 PM
03/02/08 07:42 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Texas Panhandle
tgarrett
Wanderer
|
Wanderer
Joined: Jun 2007
Texas Panhandle
|
Tony, Let me see if I can clear this up a bit. CHL (concealed handgun license), CHP (concealed handgun permit),
and different states use other designations I believe. I
have a CHL for the state of Texas and it is legal for me to carry in a State Park. To the best of my knowledge there
have been no "ugly incidents" as a result of this law.
In fact after the CHL laws were inacted violent crime went
down not up. No, CHL holders aren't "packing" most of the
time and probably only carry when they feel they are in an
area that would make them vunerable to personal harm. For instance, I'm older so to a young thug I would look like an easy target so if I'm out doing some photography I will have my Kimberly 45 cal. 1911 handgun within easy reach.
I pray that I will never be forced to use it except for target practice. It might suprise you to know that many women have CHLs. The course for a CHL is given only after a thorough background check and as a previous poster said it
is usually a 2 day course and a large part of it deals with
the laws surrounding using "deadly force" and the consequences thereof. The instructors strongly emphasize that it is to be used ONLY as a last resort. The rest of
the course deals with safe gun handling and on the firing
range you must demonstrate what you've learned and show
that you are not only safe but reasonably accurate with you
weapon. I would say, in general, the people who take these courses and get their CHL are not the rootem tootum, shootem
up kind of folks. Most have used guns a good part of their
life either hunting or for target practice and want nothing
more than to protect themselves and their loved ones legaly.
As for the NP issue I believe most CHL holders simply want
to be able to take their handguns with them and not have to
disassemble and store them. The exception might be if they
want to hike and camp back in the wilderness and then they
might wish to carry in case of a bear attack but the bottom
line is that most of these people know that most handguns
won't take a bear down anyway. I would opt for pepper spray
and I bet they would too. As for shooting at a sound in
the brush I think you folks have CHL holders mixed up with
some "city slickers" who take a rifle, ammo and 3 quarts of
whisky to the mountains to go "hunting"???
I personally will not be concerned one way or the other if
they do or do not pass the law but I would, with all due
respect, say that most of the posts so far have reflectd
the mantra of the liberal gun control crowd who would dearly
like to see ALL guns made illegal.
|
|
|
Re: Photography, Guns, and National Parks?
[Re: gll]
#13390
03/02/08 10:50 PM
03/02/08 10:50 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Manhattan, New York, New York
James Morrissey
I
|
I
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Feb 2005
Manhattan, New York, New York
|
Hey Tom,
Thank you very much for your thoughts. I think that you have made some solid points. I still don't think that anyone has answered Tony's question about a citation anywhere which indicates that the softening of the gun ban would be aimed at folks with CHLs.
Having said that, I think that I agree with you on most points. You are right, I am most concerned about folks who are not comfortable in their own skins having them available to them. I do believe that holding a gun can give a sense of false security when it is not warranted.
A similar (but hardly exact) example of this are some photos I took of a griz the last time I was in Yellowstone. I got lambasted by a few folks for being 'too close' even though I felt that I was well covered by both a ranger and a large truck. The truth was, in retrospect, I probably WAS a bit too close. The bear could have taken me down in 30 seconds had it wanted to. The ranger and his taser, pepper spray and rifle were not a safety blanket.
I do worry that loosening the restrictions on weapons in the back country may have an impact on the other critters who are in the parks for whom this is supposed to be a sanctuary. I realize that this is an opinion, but I worry that some folks might use the weapon as a 'safety blanket' and wind up putting themselves (or worse) the critter, in danger. As you point out, pepper spray may be more effective against a bear - but even pepper spray reportedly has questionable impact. Carrying any deterrant is only as good as the common sense that goes into their usage.
The one thing I do not particularly care for the use of the term 'liberal' as a nasty 7 letter word though because someone may have a differing opinion on the use of guns in the park. I think you will find that most of the folks here who are in support of the ban are gun owners and hunters (or folks who have hunted in the past). Even I, who will jokingly refer to myself as a New York Liberal, am a staunch supporter of the Second Ammendment. I do think, however, that it is very possible to be both pro gun and at the same time thoughtful about their proper place. This is NOT to imply that if you disagree with me that you are not being thoughtful, LOL. I am fine with folks making conversation where we don't agree on something...just not the marginalizing of an opinion with a stereotype (LOL, I am also ignoring the City Slicker one).
Cheers
James
Last edited by James Morrissey; 03/03/08 12:14 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Photography, Guns, and National Parks?
[Re: James Morrissey]
#13391
03/03/08 12:48 AM
03/03/08 12:48 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Texas Panhandle
tgarrett
Wanderer
|
Wanderer
Joined: Jun 2007
Texas Panhandle
|
Quote:
Hey Tom,
Thank you very much for your thoughts. I think that you have made some solid points. I still don't think that anyone has answered Tony's question about a citation anywhere which indicates that the softening of the gun ban would be aimed at folks with CHLs.
[
Having said that, I think that I agree with you on most points. You are right, I am most concerned about folks who are not comfortable in their own skins having them available to them. This is not because I think that folks are going to start unloading hundreds of rounds in the middle of Old Faithful. However, I do worry that it may have an impact on the other critters who are in the parks for whom this is supposed to be a sanctuary.
[
I do believe that holding a gun can give a sense of false security when it is not warranted. An example of this are some photos I took of a griz the last time I was in Yellowstone. I got lambasted for being 'too close' even though I was well covered by both a ranger and a large truck. The truth was, I WAS too close. The bear could have taken me down in 30 seconds had it wanted to. The ranger and his taser, pepper spray and rifle were not a safety blanket.
I worry that some folks might have taken that situation to a bit more of the extreme thinking that 'they are safe' because they actually have a real weapon. As you point out, pepper spray may be more effective against a bear - but even pepper spray reportedly has questionable impact. Carrying any deterrant is only as good as the common sense that goes into their usage.
The one thing I do not particularly care for the use of the term 'liberal' as a nasty 7 letter word though because someone may have a differing opinion on the use of guns in the park. I think you will find that most of the folks here who are in support of the ban are gun owners and hunters (or folks who have hunted in the past). Even I, who will jokingly refer to myself as a New York Liberal, am a staunch supporter of the Second Ammendment. I do think, however, that it is very possible to be both pro gun and at the same time thoughtful about their proper place. This is NOT to imply that if you disagree with me that you are not being thoughtful, LOL. I am fine with folks making conversation where we don't agree on something...just not the marginalizing of an opinion with a stereotype (LOL, I am also ignoring the City Slicker one).
[
Cheers
James
Last edited by tgarrett; 03/03/08 12:52 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Photography, Guns, and National Parks?
[Re: James Morrissey]
#13392
03/03/08 02:11 AM
03/03/08 02:11 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Texas Panhandle
tgarrett
Wanderer
|
Wanderer
Joined: Jun 2007
Texas Panhandle
|
Hi James,
Thanks for the reply. Tony's first post was a quote of
the NRA discussion. If you read it carefully you will see
that the main intent is to have NP gun laws comply with the
gun laws of the state the park is in. This directly affects
CHL holders who are licensed to carry concealed in that state. If you think about it, it doesn't make much sense
to limit their license there but let them carry in the largest cities in the state. If they don't shoot up the
citizenry or the animals outside the park why would they do
it inside the park? I think, not sure, that the law would
only apply to CHL holders or perhaps others to carry in
their cars if the state permits that. Some do.
I doubt that unlicensed visitors will be granted any privileges not now in effect.
I certainly do not advocate that everyone pack a gun when visiting a NP but when I visit mine will always be in my
car and accessable. The only time I might want one would be if I were hiking and camping in the backcountry. Not so much as bear protection but thug protection. If truth be told I bet that a huge percentage of visitors have a gun in their cars now under the present system and do not have a CHL. I've never heard of the NPs having a problem with it.
James, with the exception of 2 posters everyone strongly
opposed the proposed new law. Several imagined tragic
secenarios were cited as good reason the law should not be
inacted. Although you don't care for the stereotype "liberal", that kind of rhetoric sounds exactly
like that of the anti-gun people and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck----------------------
As lovers of wildlife I can see how folks might over react
to this proposal if they did not fully understand what is
really being proposed. I respect you all, especially Tony, but I must disagree with the assumptions made in most of the posts.
Kindest Regards,
Tom
|
|
|
Re: Photography, Guns, and National Parks?
[Re: tgarrett]
#13393
03/03/08 02:38 AM
03/03/08 02:38 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Manhattan, New York, New York
James Morrissey
I
|
I
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Feb 2005
Manhattan, New York, New York
|
Hey Tom,
Thanks for the information on the CHLs. Curiously, what happens when an owner is in a park that crosses multiple states (such as Yellowstone or Death Valley)? As I recall, one of the articles I cited raised this question in the newsletter this month.
As to the the response that the general consensus of the posts were 'liberal' in their orientation because all but two posters were strongly against this, I do not believe that this is accurate. I did a count (and perhaps I am losing it as it is late) of the messages. As I saw it, 4 posters were for the relaxation of the ban (Yourself, Gll, David and Gluteal Cleft), 6 were against (Tony, JamesDak, Roman, PeggySue, Jim Garvie and myself) and one did not say one way or the other (John O'Connell).
Interestingly, of the 6 folks who were against a relaxation of the ban, at least 3 of us said we are not against gun ownership in any way...just not relaxing the ban in the back country areas of the parks.
"Several imagined tragic secenarios were cited as good reason the law should not be inacted. Although you don't care for the stereotype "liberal", that kind of rhetoric sounds exactly like that of the anti-gun people and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck----------------------"
The situation, unfortunately, lends itself to imagined scenarios. Even my own scenario was imagined, not based on reality. I will be the first to agree with you though that speculation 'does not necessarily make it so.' It seems though that both 'pro' and 'anti' gun folks seem to find a case to make their opinion valid in any situation that occurs regarding a gun one way or the other.
However, given that the topic has been fairly well balanced over-all, why ruin the conversation with statements that are only going to lead to a degredation of the discussion? I find that any time someone throws the word 'liberal' or 'conservative' into the mix that it just becomes a way of people getting out feelings rather than substantive debate that actually ends in something valuable.
Thanks again for the information. It certainly does help put some of the items in perspective.
James
|
|
|
Re: Photography, Guns, and National Parks?
[Re: tgarrett]
#13394
03/03/08 09:46 AM
03/03/08 09:46 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Eden (no really!)
jamesdak
Old hand
|
Old hand
Joined: Jul 2006
Eden (no really!)
|
Quote:
James, with the exception of 2 posters everyone strongly
opposed the proposed new law. Several imagined tragic
secenarios were cited as good reason the law should not be
inacted. Although you don't care for the stereotype "liberal", that kind of rhetoric sounds exactly
like that of the anti-gun people and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck----------------------
As lovers of wildlife I can see how folks might over react
to this proposal if they did not fully understand what is
really being proposed. I respect you all, especially Tony, but I must disagree with the assumptions made in most of the posts.
Kindest Regards,
Tom
Well, I am against it yet far from a liberal trying to ban guns. Grew up with them and used them all my life. But having been actually shot once and shot at 3 times by "idiots" in the woods I don't think it is a over-dramatization. And no I'm not really worried about the licensed carriers, like I said in an earlier post. It's the idiot who buys a gun for protection because he's taking the family to the "wilds of Yellowstone" and he needs to protect them against the fierce grizzly bear. Never had a gun in his life and now he's packing and nervous in a very busy national park. Recipe for disaster.
|
|
|
Re: Photography, Guns, and National Parks?
[Re: jamesdak]
#13395
03/03/08 02:39 PM
03/03/08 02:39 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Montana
Tony Bynum
OP
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Feb 2005
Montana
|
It is not legal now for most to carry guns in our national parks. Outside of a few problem areas, most in boarder states, there are not safety problems. However, the reason the law was innacted by ronald reagon in the first was 1. to let people transport, (no bolt, in a case out of reach) and 2. to help law enforcement deal with poaching.
Now, unless you can SHOW me how letting more guns in the park will help with reducing poaching, or making the parks a safer place, this entire proposal is just political posturing.
I own, by most standards a lot of guns. I shoot them regularly, I hunt and kill game, I posses a concealed weapons permit, I'm trained in the use of fire arms, I'v also taken hunter safety (which, is another issue, especially if you hunt out of state - most now require you PASS a hunter safty course just to HUNT IN THAT STATE, I would think, that by your standards, you would be against that law too, in fact, I've never heard a singe person object to that and furthermore, the NRA supports it - go figure) but we can, as a society do without guns in our national parks. I'm talking about unlimited pack and cary. I'd be okay with a permit, or a pack and carry, or conceled weapons permit or a gun safety card, just like the ones hunters are issued in order to hunt in states like montana, colorado, wyoming, washington, and all of those programs are supported by the NRA dont forget. . .
BTW, the next time go for a drive in the wide open west, try to find a single deer crossing sign or a single forest service gate that DOES NOT have a hole in it. . . If you find one, take a picture of it and post it here. There are no bullet holes in the park signs, there would be if it were legal for anyone to pack a gun into our national parks. If you dont think this is true, or you down play the significance of it, you are choosing to participate in the willful social denial of truth.
I say, "No open carry laws in our national parks." If you have safety issues in the boarder states, deal with those, but dont think that by allowing guns in yellowstone and glacier they will become safer for you, or me, or the animals, they wont!
|
|
|
Re: Photography, Guns, and National Parks?
[Re: Tony Bynum]
#13396
03/03/08 06:31 PM
03/03/08 06:31 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Dumas, Texas
gll
Tracker
|
Tracker
Joined: Mar 2007
Dumas, Texas
|
Well now I'm confused, I thought we were discussing Right to Carry which I thought was concealed weapon permit only ? I never heard about an open carry law ? It was my understanding that a law abiding citizen could take a course on the gun laws of his state and certify with a handgun where you have to demonstrate you can shoot with some skill, then pay a permit fee and have a state agency (Texas is DPS) run a background check on you then if you passed everything you get a permit for concealed carry of a handgun, took about 2 months back when I got one. then you can carry, the gun has to stay concealed, you cannot flash it or pull it and play with it. it stays concealed. then there is only one situation where you are legal to shoot and that is to defend your LIFE or those of your Family.then a court will decide if you were justified. any other shooting is covered by numerous law already. a conceal weapons permit is an exception to prosecution for illegally carrying a handgun, it is not a license to shoot whenever or whatever you want.
open carry of a gun by anyone that wants to --- against it
Concealed weapons permit carry ------- For it
Last edited by gll; 03/03/08 06:47 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Photography, Guns, and National Parks?
[Re: gll]
#13397
03/03/08 07:35 PM
03/03/08 07:35 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Montana
Tony Bynum
OP
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Feb 2005
Montana
|
Okay, lets get to the nuts and bolts and on the ground with a real life example of what will happen if this law is passed. This new law WILL hurt our national security and make glacier and Yellowstone more dangerous. In effect, what the new law would allow is for ANYONE that is NOT otherwise ban from owning a weapon, to carry a weapon in Yellowstone or Glacier Park. In Montana and Washington, last I checked, you could carry a gun on your side all day long, there's no law against it . . . so long as the hand gun is in site, on your body, you can carry it. . . It's only when it's hidden that a carrier must have a permit. You can NOT carry a rifle concealed.
So again, a new law like the one proposed would allow ANYONE not prohibited from carry a gun, to do so in a national park. In Montana if you’re a felon or under 18 or serving a jail term, you can’t get a permit or carry a gun and therefore you cant carry in a a park.
But more interesting is that the law, as proposed will NOT make things simpler – as it states it will in the article – but it will make things more complicated in places like Yellowstone and Glacier because one is an international peace park that shares an international boarder with Canada, and the other occupies two different states with separate gun laws, and gun carry laws do not cross state lines. . .
Glacier shares an international boundary with Canada and there is un regulated power boat traffic on Waterton Lake to and from the USA, talk about a terrorist loophole, you could drive a Mack truck through it. So you want to infringe on my right to recreate without government involvement by requiring me to go though a security check to get my boat on the lake right – okay, are you going to now pay for that?
If you support this law, you also must want to make our country less safe, If we allow un permitted people to pack guns in Glacier we will see increase in illegal gun traffic in the park, no doubt. And it won’t be the "law abiding” one's doing the trafficking. People will exploit the law because it will be less risky to drive to the lake boat the guns and bombs into the USA and then hike them right down to the road once your in the park.
This would happen because once you’re in glacier, it's okay to carry guns. . . This to me is a huge national security threat and if the law passes, YOU CAN BET LIFE FOR ME AND THE PEOPLE OF THIS AREA AND WATERTON PARK WILL BE MORE DANGERES NOT LESS. We will have more gun and drug trafficking due to no boarder security and wide open spaces where today it is not legal to have a gun; if it's legal half the risk is gone. . .
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered members (),
396
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums6
Topics627
Posts989
Members3,317
| |
Most Online629
Dec 4th, 2019
|
|
|
