Comments on: LETTER: Guns in Parks Will Change the Ranger Image
By dsrobins on 03-06-10
Very well put, Mr. Reckin. You are right on the mark. Max Baucus and Jon Tester were both craven and irresponsible in supporting the NRA measure to allow loaded weapons in our national parks. Clearly, both of them are afraid to stand up to the NRA and its gun-toting members. The entire affair is utterly shameful.
By mitch on 03-06-10
agreed dsrobins! Bribery is an ugly word.
By Craig moore on 03-06-10
Mr. Reckin: “...not once did I feel park visitors were threatened to the end that they needed a gun for protection. ”
It’s not about how you “feel” it’s about the facts: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35484383/
=======================
The National Park Service said there were 3,760 reported major crimes, including five homicides and 37 rapes, in 2008, the most recent year for which data was available. The agency does not note which crimes involve firearms. Crime is down across the system’s parks, according to park service spokesman David Barna.
==============
With 5 homicides and 37 rapes, how many more are necessary for you to feel empathy for these unarmed victims?
By Kohl on 03-06-10
And so the Second Amendment, on Federal lands MUST allow the wearing and carrying of firearms, since the US Supreme Court ruled that firearm ownership and possesion is an individual liberty (Heller vs. Washington, D.C. , circa 2008). You have no choice; if you don’t like it, stay out of the national parks. The Second Amendment doesn’t end at the park gates!
By JB on 03-06-10
“The ranger image will change from interpreter, guide and protector to that of an armed law enforcement officer.”
NPS has had armed law enforcement rangers for MANY years now - when the heck was the last time you were in a National Park, Jerry?
Besides, as I have said MANY times before, it is not the responsibility of law enforcement officials to protect citizens - it is to ENFORCE LAWS. Allowing those who wish to enter a national park armed is allowing those same individuals the right to protect themselves and their property - whether it be from either the 4-legged or 2-legged variety.
By TouchDown on 03-06-10
To: Mr. Reckin, You mentioned working in Yosemite. Several years back a young lady had her head taken off by some crazy guy. She might still be with us if she had a firearm for self protection. The people with conceled carry permits are some of the best people on the planet. The parks are safer with these people being armed.
By YOURFEELINGSNOTFACTS on 03-06-10
.“not once did I feel park visitors were threatened to the end ..”
So please tell us about your feelings when this happened:
Cary Stayner was hired as a handyman at the Cedar Lodge motel in El Portal, just outside the Highway 140 Arch Rock entrance to Yosemite National Park. Between February and July 1999, he murdered four women: Carole Sund, her daughter Julie Sund, their travel companion, exchange student Silvina Pelosso and Yosemite National Institute’s (now NatureBridge) employee Joie Armstrong.
By Firebeam on 03-06-10
“Apparently re-election is more important than preserving the peace and tranquility of our national parks. ”
Uh huh, and apparently re-election is more important than meaningful health care reform or a host of other issues that are far greater. Anybody for term limits??
As for guns in the parks..I really don’t think that it’s going to be a problem…people who carry, probably did so before this change and will just continue to do so, although now legally.
I carry concealed, and have only once considered drawing the weapon—then didn’t. More importantly, although I’ve never had to draw, I wouldn’t be without it in this crazy world. You never know when you’ll save someone’s or your own butt.
It’s the ones that flash, brandish and brag that you gotta watch out for.
By dsrobins on 03-06-10
Wow, the NRA gun goons are out it force tonight feeling macho and pounding their chests while proclaiming another great victory. It’s interesting how many of them wrote about the rate of violent crimes in our national parks. One wonders if any of them bothered to count the number of visitors to all our national parks each year and then to compare that number to the violent crime rate in any major American city. Obviously, they haven’t because that would prove that the rate in the parks is far, far lower, but that doesn’t suit their arguments so they don’t mention it. The sad thing is the crime rate will skyrocket now that these same gun goons are unleashed. Shame on Baucus, Tester and Rehberg for allowing it to happen.
By TouchDown on 03-06-10
The crime rate will not skyrocket in national parks with the ability of good people to carry a gun. Crime goes down when we can defend ourselves. Should carry one everywhere. Gun free zones are just open season for crazy or low life people. Washington DC has tuffist gun laws and highest crime rate.
By JB on 03-07-10
@dsrobins - You have proof of your assertions, right? Either put up or shut up.
By mitch on 03-07-10
Touchdown: “Stayner did act alone, with the help of only a weapon. “Stayner,” says the source, “used a gun after gaining entry to the motel room of the Sunds and Pelosso, and tied them up.” Google it! So, we see how different this situation may have turned out if this demented person had NOT had a gun in his possession. I wonder if there’s ever been a study done of how many innocents are killed by frightened, demented, angry, careless people with guns, as compared to those innocents who could possibly, in the wildest stretch of imagination been saved from one of these nutsos….....if they’d have had a gun?
By Craig moore on 03-07-10
dsrobins: “NRA gun goons…”
Wow! Such an unnecessary, trollish comment. Perhaps Bill Schneider, whose columns appear here, has the better perspective, without the overwrought hysteria: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/national_park_gun_law_still_a_yawner/C41/L41/
By TouchDown on 03-07-10
The nutsos will always get their weapon, the underground or"black"market is thriveing on this planet. I’d be happy to give up my guns if all guns would just disapear. But all guns don’t just go away because one part of the planet outlaws them. The gal I was taking about was actually a park employee not an armed ranger. I’ve never heard of an armed park ranger being taken out. In several magazines that hunters, gun owners and freedom seekers read, there is an armed citizen article that gives first hand accounts of the average person thwarting crime by defending themselves with a gun. these accounts give verifiable dates, times, places and the name of the investigating law inforcement branch along with the newspaper that reported it.
By Craig moore on 03-07-10
Keep in mind that the challenges in Glacier Park are far different than national parks on our southern border where the coyotes bring in their human traffic. There is also drug smuggling. Thousands dead on the Mexico side from the drug lord wars.
BUT, that in not even the real issue. Should state gun laws and the US Constitution control the carry of firearms into national parks? That’s it. Feelings, name calling, and hysteria have nothing to do with answering that question.
By TouchDown on 03-07-10
Good point Craig
By prv8eye on 03-07-10
Wow, the writer actually believes every American should give up their Constitutional right and limit their ability to protect themselves and their family because of the feelings of the naturalists or the burdens of the park rangers whom WE employ.
By mitch on 03-07-10
Craig, you are correct in that Glacier is entirely different than many parks. No one would dispute that we need more rangers, and unfortunately now, more experienced with guns. One thought, we know every one who enters our park is packing binocs and a camera. I’m sure most of those intent upon wrongdoing will be photographed. You may think you are alone in the back country, but who knows who may be sitting upon that mountain side with their camera zoomed in on you?
By Craig moore on 03-07-10
Zoom away Mitch. Now how about that issue: “Should state gun laws and the US Constitution control the carry of firearms into national parks?”
By TouchDown on 03-07-10
Mitch: It does help that we all know that everything we do could be seen or photographed. But the rouge bear or demented criminal don’t care. It also makes you look around twice before you relieve yourself in the back country. Don’t want to see myself on facebook or youtube.
By mitch on 03-07-10
My thought are the laws should have stayed the way they were. If you have a gun, you are merely transporting it thru the park, and it is to be disabled and hidden. At least that was the old way of thinking. I imagine the hidden part is because some would be so stupid to leave it out in view to be stolen. This seemed to work, and I don’t remember anyone ever having a complaint. Concerning the “rogue” bear, that’s not an issue in this post, as it has been proven by those who have the facts and knowledge that bear spray is more effective. Whether you agree with this or not doesn’t matter. Concerning the “demented criminals”, this is certainly a issue. Just because someone is sane and sober when he purchases his gun, doesn’t mean he’s going to be hours, days, weeks later when something unforseen sets him off, or…. an animal scares him. So my understanding here is that this new ruling allows more “demented criminals” to carry guns in our park. In order to balance things out, we who are supposedly responsible gun owners must now carry guns to protect our families against these bad guys who wouldn’t be waving them around in our parks, if it hadn’t been for this law. I stand by “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Any time something works well and people start tweaking with the plan, I can guarantee it will have unexpected consequences. It is extremely frightening to imagine our country is being controlled by a large special interest group who has bought our congressmen. Bribery is what it’s called.
By Vud on 03-07-10
While you may be able to carry a gun into the parks I believe it is still illegal to discharge a gun in the park.
Weapons charges, anyone?
By Dave on 03-07-10
In a way, the new law is irrelevant. Changing laws (one way or another) cannot affect the underlying problem, of which guns are the symptom.
Why is one of the most common commandments in the bible “be not afraid”?
By dsrobins on 03-07-10
I thought TouchDown’s comment was uproariously funny. Did you know that bears use rouge? Has anyone ever seen a rouge bear? Do you suppose he meant rogue instead?
By TellTheTruth on 03-07-10
To Craig moore:
The five homicides and 37 rapes cited by the NPS for 2008 occured across the entire 390+ park system, with 275 MILLION visitors. That’s not very many of these types of crimes, given the number of people who visited the parks in 2008. It is not necessary for people to carry guns in parks.
By Craig moore on 03-07-10
“Necessary” is not the issue. See above. I am somewhat shocked that you would tell the families of those 5 homicides and 37 rapes that personal defense measures were not necessary.
By TellTheTruth on 03-07-10
Yes, I would tell people visiting parks in the National Park system that it is not necessary to carry guns. Read again the number of visitors. That’s 275 million visitors, and only 5 homicides. The chances of running into a violent criminal are very, very low in a park. The few cases that get all the media attention do so because it is such a rare event. Law and policy should not be made to cover the extremely rare event, good law and policy should cover events that are more likely to happen.
When was the last time you visited any national park, monument, recreation area, lakeshore, seashore, etc.? Have you ever been threatened with a violent crime while on such a visit?
By TouchDown on 03-07-10
dsrobins: Thanks for the spelling correction. I am now laughing at myself. I might even pick up some bear spray. I wonder if it comes in rouge? dave: Concernig the underlying problem, alcohol and or other drugs seem to be a common factor in most violent crime. Guns don’t kill people, people do. The first recorded murder was done with a rock. Personally I would prefer not to shoot a bear or another human. I would rather carry another bottle of water than a side arm, but I don’t like my rights being enfringed upon. Self defence of me and my family is paramount. Use and or stand up for your rights or loose them,
“be not afraid” Interesting thought, even the Apostle Peter carried a sword. It came close to getting him in trouble but he would not have carried it if Jesus would have told him not to.
By mitch on 03-07-10
Of course guns don’t kill people. It’s the crazies that are packing them that we have to beware of. You are absolutely correct TellTheTruth, we are going to put 275 million people’s lives in danger because 5 were killed? I am among these people daily, and mostly the biggest problem that arises is that partyers will want to continue on later in the evening, and they are bothering the other campers. Keeping in mind these campground hosts are older retired people. They do a wonderful job, usually getting things under control with one or two visits. What’s going to happen the first time some idiot with a gun threatens them?
By Kohl on 03-07-10
All of this is nothing new to the anti-gun, Brady Buch consensus. For these sorts, no gun is a good gun. I will continue to carry firearms in my national and state parks, legal or not. The stats mean nothing to me. The fools who will be hurt or killed by animal or human attack will continue to be the unarmed viarety who be lieve in Mother Nature, the Good Ranger, the Government, the Tree Fairy and all other manners of silliness.
By Jäger on 03-11-10
Mr Reckin’s comments are a little narrow minded at best. It is the usual fear mongering that the world will end as we know it we see every time gun laws are relaxed. Reality does not match the fear mongering.
First, if he likes “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, he shouldn’t have any problem with RESTORING gun rights in the parks. Clearly he has forgotten that prior to Reagan bringing in restrictions, carrying a firearm in the parks for protection was legal. And no, there wasn’t blood running down the trails, widespread poaching, etc. back then.
Second, while Mr Regin and his fellow travellers may not like it, the Bill of Rights does not end at park boundaries. That not only includes rights concerning search and seizure, freedom of expression, etc - but the Second Amendment as well.
Third, yes, the chance of being the victim of violence from a wild animal or criminal in the parks is low. But it does exist. If Mr Regin and his fellow travellers want to play the odds and take part in the unarmed victim lottery - inside or outside the park - then that is their prerogative. However, they have no business demanding others go similarly defenseless as they do.
Fourth, despite the idyllic picture of the parks Mr Regin wants to paint, the fact of the matter is Park Rangers themselves have pointed out that they are 12 times more likely to be assaulted or murdered than FBI agents.Given that, does Mr Regin really want us to believe that the same violent criminals that assault park rangers would never attack a park visitor - particularly an apparently unarmed park visitor?
To put it another way, if we really should have no concerns about our safety in the parks, and the presence of firearms is really that horrendous, isn’t it the least that he and his fellow travellers could do to advocate that park rangers be disarmed as well, except for a long gun locked up out of sight for problem animals?
No, you won’t hear them advocate for that - there’s no more logic in disarming rangers than there is the public.
Mr Regin’s comments are simply fear mongering - no different than the fear mongering that took place in the recent debates over concealed carry laws here in Montana. Our firearms laws are some of the most permissive in the nation concerning the right to carry firearms for defense. And while all the crying goes on, none of those doing the crying appear to notice that our murder rate is one of the lowest in the nation.
Full disclosure: no, I don’t belong to the NRA (never have) and therefore cannot be stereotyped as one of those “NRA gun goons” by the intellectually limited. However, I was a cop for 20 years and if I was working as a park ranger, the idea of law abiding visitors carrying firearms wouldn’t bother me in the least.It’s the criminal ones who never stopped carrying firearms in parks no matter what laws prohibiting that Reagan passed (duh… criminals who don’t obey gun laws; who’da thunk it) that would concern me.
By Kohl on 03-12-10
Most elequently put, Jager! You’ve said it all; end of story.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.