Gun ban set to expire at National Parks .... finally

[Danno 1,228]

National Parks gun ban set to expire, hysteria reaching critical

February 18, 6:49 AMCleveland Gun Rights ExaminerDaniel White

Monday, February 22, the ban on loaded firearms in National Parks will end once more. That is when the rule change goes into effect and National Parks will follow state law in determining what rights visitors are allowed to have. In Ohio, gun rights are not taken away when you enter a park so the Cuyahoga Valley National Park (Ohio's only National Park) as well as the several national wildlife refuges will permit lawfully armed citizens to enjoy the same rights they've had for many years in city parks, county parks, Metroparks, state parks, national forests, etc.

As happens whenever a change to the law occurs which returns gun freedoms, some are predicting dire consequences.

The new rule is "sad to me" and greatly increases the risk to park visitors, said Toby Hoover of the Toledo-based Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence [to Bob Downing of the Akron Beacon Journal].

"The big problem is that park visitors will now be forced to rely on the judgment of those carrying weapons in our parks for our safety . . . and that's not an ideal recipe," she said.

Those fears are unfounded as has been proven in all other parks in Ohio. If there hasn't been a problem in local and state parks, why would a National Park be any different. It won't, of course, but that doesn't fit the agenda. Or, you could just lie about it and hope people believe you.

Greg Murray and Emily Savage say guns are obstacles skiers should not have to avoid.

"The risks are way too high. I work in a hospital so we see a lot of issues with hunters in the park misfiring and accidentally hitting pedestrians so it's definitely not a good idea," Emily Savage said.

Really? Raise your hand if you believe hunters are regularly shooting pedestrians and nobody is talking about it. You can't just make up stories and use those lies to justify your position. Fortunately for those that prefer non-fiction, WKYC news presented the other side of the story.

"You just don't see it happening. Every park in the state of Ohio except this national park allows it and has since 2004," Ohioans for Conceal Carry President Jeff Garvas said.

The Beacon Journal also points out that "officials in the Cuyahoga Valley park do not expect a major impact with the easing of firearm restrictions." There won't be. Law abiding citizens have never been the problem when it comes to crime, it is the criminals who would prey upon them. This change won't change the fact that criminals have been armed in National Parks all along. Now, they just have to consider that their intended victim might be able to fight back.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2206-Cl...aching-critical

[scandal 951]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=242171

[Niels Bohr 72]

So, it's not okay to protect freedom of religion, but it's okay to protect freedom of firearms.

[Danno 1,228]

So, it's not okay to protect freedom of religion, but it's okay to protect freedom of firearms.

Not sure what you mean.

Is there someone being denied "freedom of religion" in National Parks?

[Niels Bohr 72]

The relevence of inferences is lacking. To objectify the truth of the matter is that if one is to protect freedom for firearms, one should also protect freedom of religion. Doesn't matter where it is applied in the US.

Not sure what you mean.

Is there someone being denied "freedom of religion" in National Parks?

[Danno 1,228]

The relevence of inferences is lacking. To objectify the truth of the matter is that if one is to protect freedom for firearms, one should also protect freedom of religion. Doesn't matter where it is applied in the US.

yes

[ready4ONE 5,400]

National Parks gun ban set to expire, hysteria reaching critical

February 18, 6:49 AMCleveland Gun Rights ExaminerDaniel White

Those fears are unfounded as has been proven in all other parks in Ohio. If there hasn't been a problem in local and state parks, why would a National Park be any different. It won't, of course, but that doesn't fit the agenda. Or, you could just lie about it and hope people believe you.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2206-Cl...aching-critical

Jeez... I guess there never has been a shooting in an Ohio park... Oops, what's this:

Shooting in Ohio park story July 2009

March 2009 discussion of teens involved in fatal shooting in downtown park in Ohio

Nope, never had any gun trouble in Ohio parks...

[Danno 1,228]

Jeez... I guess there never has been a shooting in an Ohio park... Oops, what's this:

Shooting in Ohio park story July 2009

March 2009 discussion of teens involved in fatal shooting in downtown park in Ohio

Nope, never had any gun trouble in Ohio parks...

You do realize thats not a national park?

This story is about National Parks.

I don't think anyone is arguing that -There is no crime in National parks so therefore it's cool to be packin.

The fact that there is crime,,,, which is one of the reasons people should be packin, truth is... those with criminal intent, have been armed all along.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Danno

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So you can take a gun to a national park. Who gives 5 tugs of Yogi Bear's #######?

[Danno 1,228]

So you can take a gun to a national park. Who gives 5 tugs of Yogi Bear's #######?

I'm wondering why Yogi's Pecker came to mind for you and not a pinch on Bambi's Azz?

What did they teach you at that boarding School Pike?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm wondering why Yogi's Pecker came to mind for you and not a pinch on Bambi's Azz?

What did they teach you at that boarding School Pike?

Apparently more than they taught you, Danno.

[Danno 1,228]

Apparently more than they taught you, Danno.

NO boarding school for me, Boy scout camp was the order of the day..... and you know how they feel about tugging on Peckers.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Errr sure Danno.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

So, it's not okay to protect freedom of religion, but it's okay to protect freedom of firearms.

Not sure I understand....

As far as I know, our well regulated militia, has never had any restriction on it....

Just as our 2nd Amendment demands....

[scandal 951]

As far as I know, our well regulated militia, has never had any restriction on it....

Just as our 2nd Amendment demands....

It would indeed seem now to be established as an individual right, and not a collective one. That was murky for much of it's history, as I'm sure you know. Had it been established as strictly a collective right (states can form armed militias, but can restrict the rights of individuals to possess firearms), there would most certainly have been restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.

Heller made clear the individual right in areas of federal jurisdiction (e.g. Washington DC).

The upcoming case of McDonald v.Chicago is going to settle it once and for all nationwide, in all 50 states. Have a look at the VJ thread regarding this landmark case.