_
Where is Liddy on Carrying Guns in National Parks?
Elizabeth Dole wants to endanger the lives of millions of families who visit America’s national parks each year.
Dole recently petitioned the Department of Interior to end a federal ban on openly carrying firearms in most national parks.
But Dole’s request is unnecessary, dangerous to visitors and potentially harmful to wildlife, park rangers say. [Time, Dec. 21]
Under the current rule, visitors can drive through a national park with a firearm as long as it’s not loaded and readily accessible. This cuts down on poaching and accidental shootings.
This isn’t about protecting Second Amendment rights. Why would someone need to carry a loaded gun in a park that doesn’t allow hunting?
This is about pandering. A recent poll shows Elizabeth Dole with an approval rating below 50 percent. As long as Liddy Dole engages in bumper sticker politics, she hopes that voters won’t notice that she isn’t in North Carolina very often.
Dole hopes voters won’t notice that she voted against expanding health care insurance to our children or providing benefits to our nation’s veterans.
She’s hoping voters won’t notice that it took her two months to oppose an outlying landing field in Eastern North Carolina after state leaders and the congressional delegation came out against it.
She’s hoping voters won’t notice that when it comes to the concerns of North Carolinians, she’s gun shy.
- Login or register to post comments. Help with comments.
Comments
Change in National Parks Gun Laws
I am a law abiding citizen, 61 years young, never been charged with any crime, nor even ticketed for any traffic offense. I have just purchased my first shotgun, and soon plan to purchase a handgun. Primary reason.....home and personal defense. Do you really think the criminals around you care anything about the laws? I think the record number of people being imprisoned tells that story. This summer my wife and I are taking a 2 week trip to the remote areas of southwest Colorado. There are few law enforcement personnel in those areas to provide protection for us....both from people and wild animals. I plan to have a gun in my possession for protection purposes only, and I would like to be legal in doing so. I was overjoyed to hear of this proposed change in our National Park system. I have no interest in hunting, or shooting animals for no good reason. I have not shot any animal since I was a wild child with a BB gun and the last bird I shot brought me to tears. I do not belong to the NRA....have requested in the past that they do not phone or solicit me via mail. I do not think I am being unreasonable in requesting that I be allowed to protect my wife and myself. In making up your minds whether to support this change or not, please keep this scenario I have laid out in mind. It is reasonable, it is protected by the Constitution.....don't make it harder on law abiding citizens to stay safe, especially when they are in areas where few law enforcement resources are available, such as our National Parks.
How about going back
How about going back country, where the bears are? You could persuade
Smoky to try gnawing something else?
guns in natl parks
If that young woman in north GA who was hiking,, the woman in Fl, and young man in Natl park had had their guns, they would not have LOST THEIR HEADS TO A MURDER!!!!!
HOW DUMB to think that criminals obey gun control laws!!!!!
You would have increased their chances...
But are you certain a gun, solves the problem? In a society of freedom, that does have crime, you can't prevent all crimes especially if one has intent to harm you.
There are many probabilities you have to look at..."the big picture" what's safest decision for all people....! Look at this one scenario...what if all the people who drink alcohol in federal parks carried a gun or guns.......did they walk or did they drive? or does this never happen?
Criminals commit crimes, if they assume you have a gun, that will just increase the violence but not prevent the crime...
You Answered Your Own Question
I'm glad you brought up background checks, permits, and concealed weapon permits. As you know North Carolina requires training, background checks, and a Sheriff-approved permits before carrying a weapon. However, not every state is as dilligent as North Carolina. As a safe and legal gun owner (and thank you for that) I'm sure you can recognize the danger of someone with no training or no background check in a family park carrying a concealed weapon.
Additionally, because state gun laws vary so greatly, park officials state that the almost 400 Park Services jurisdictions would find it impossible to enforce individual state laws particularly with the large numbers of out-of-state visitors each year. Your federal government does trust you, they just also trust the National Park Service to know what is safest for our national parks.
Typical liberal outlook.
Typical liberal outlook. People legally have CWPs that allow them to protect themselves when the police aren't there. Why shouldn't this protection be extended to Federal parks? I have a CWP and I've yet to blast some defenseless little animal while driving. If the state trusts me with a pistol, why shouldn't the federal government? People go through an extensive background check as well as training plus pay a hefty fee for the privledge to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. Did you know that in NH ANY citizen can carry a concealed weapon WITHOUT a permit?