Showdown over packing heat in national parks

[SHANEA]

Received this from a friend of mine that retired from the National Parks.

Showdown over packing heat in national parks

[presidio]

Received this from a friend of mine that retired from the National Parks.

Showdown over packing heat in national parks

What part of 'lawful carry' do these folks not understand? Apparently all of it. The NPS so-called problems relate to unlawful carry. Always have, always will. Poachers will not benefit nor diminish just because someone can legally carry a concealed weapon. No study or set of statistics anywhere has demonstrated anything other than an overall decrease in crime when concealed carry is lawful.

To imply otherwise is both ignorant and obfuscatory.

[Casa Grande]

Received this from a friend of mine that retired from the National Parks.

Showdown over packing heat in national parks

What part of 'lawful carry' do these folks not understand? Apparently all of it. The NPS so-called problems relate to unlawful carry. Always have, always will. Poachers will not benefit nor diminish just because someone can legally carry a concealed weapon. No study or set of statistics anywhere has demonstrated anything other than an overall decrease in crime when concealed carry is lawful.

To imply otherwise is both ignorant and obfuscatory.

I will have to agree with you.

[Roy]

I'm pretty much "For" anything that that lets people live however they want;  there's way too much regulation of presonal lives as is.  In this case, that means letting people carry their weapons in the Parks, and I think that's going to happen.   OTOH, there's also a movement to allow individuals to carry in airports and I think thats going to run headlong into the Dept. of Homeland Security.  Be interesting to see who wins that one;  I've got my money on DHS.
None of this is a sure thing.  The Supreme Court case was about the right of a security guard to keep a weapon in his home for his own protection.  There's a lot of distance between that and carrying on public land or in an area that the country has spent a lot of time and money on trying to "secure".
I've got mixed feelings about this whole situation.  I've never felt the need to carry a firearm, and I'm not going to do so now.  I believe the 2nd amendment allows for private gun ownership and I think a number of these laws preventing it should be struck down.   Most of the people I know who do carry are responsible and no threat to anyone;  they're not the problem.  OTOH, there really ARE "gun nuts" out there, and they can be a problem.  I'm related to a few, and I've had some really scary experiences when I've been around them.  Fortunately, none of these idiots has ever shot anyone but themselves (yet).  Although one did bag a cow while he was out "deer hunting" a couple of years ago.
The other thing that really bothers me about this is the inclination of people to pick and choose which half of the amendment they want to enforece.  Most gun rights supporters want to ignore the first half of the amendment, which speaks about regulation.  (Don't give me that look;  they wouldn't have put it in there if they didn't mean it.  They clearly meant have some control over people who carried these weapons, although perhaps not the weapons themselves)  Of course, the other side wants to totally ignore the last part and do nothing but regulate firearms anyway they can.  Makes me wonder which clause of which amendment Scalia or Suitor wants to ignore next time around.   

[uh_clem]

The NPS so-called problems relate to unlawful carry.

What does that mean? If guns are allowed in National Parks these things would not happen? Or is this the "gun owners are more law abiding than non-gun owners" argument?

No study or set of statistics anywhere has demonstrated anything other than an overall decrease in crime when concealed carry is lawful.

I would like to see these statistics and studies. Where can I find them?

[Undertaker]

In Texas you can check with the Department of Public Safety on the Net they publish the stats, as both a former non tote and now tote, I am just the same person, most of the arguments presented against guns is we have the cops, good luck on your call. It is against the law for a peace officer to act prior to the crime, and based on the number of women who have had court orders protecting them and the number that have been killed while holding on to the court order, my argument is criminal means outside the law, they don't care about you and my law and they should not have any advantage over law abiding citizens.

[badknees]

OTOH, there's also a movement to allow individuals to carry in airports and I think thats going to run headlong into the Dept. of Homeland Security.  Be interesting to see who wins that one;  I've got my money on DHS.

I'll take that bet.

In the state of Texas it is already legal for a permit holder to carry in the airport. (Just not in the secured area)

I believe you are talking about Atlanta.

[SHANEA]

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/faq.htm

Q: Where can I not take my handgun?
A: Handguns and other weapons can not be carried at schools or on school buses, at polling places, in courts and court offices, at racetracks and at secured airport areas. The law also specifically prohibits handguns from businesses where alcohol is sold if more than half of their revenue is from the sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption, and from locations where high school, college or professional sporting events are taking place. You may not carry handguns in hospitals or nursing homes, amusement parks, places of worship or at government meetings if signs are posted prohibiting them. Businesses also may post signs prohibiting handguns on their premises based on criminal trespass laws.

[Undertaker]

As far as schools are concerned you may walk your child to the door, you may not enter door.  Check: http://handgunlaw.us/
in Texas only specific sign is acceptable to prevent entry, Spanish/English very specific wording. You may be ask to leave almost anyplace by the person in control of the property and you must comply. If properly concealed the average person will never know you are carrying.

[oldfatman]

If not properly concealed you are wrong.

[Undertaker]

Thats why I said properly concealed. I defy most people including law enforcement to tell if I am carrying without a pat down. By the way here is the sign requirement. PROHIBITING HANDGUNS IN A BUSINESS OR OTHER ENTITY

In order to provide notice that entry on property by a license holder with a concealed handgun is forbidden, Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(A) requires that a written communication contain the following language:

"PURSUANT TO SECTION 30.06, PENAL CODE (TRESPASS BY HOLDER OF A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN) A PERSON LICENSED UNDER SUBCHAPTER H, CHAPTER 411, GOVERNMENT CODE (CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW), MAY NOT ENTER THIS PROPERTY WITH A CONCEALED HANDGUN."

"CONFORME A LA SECCIÓN 30.06 DEL CÔDIGO PENAL (TRASPASAR PORTANDO ARMAS DE FUEGO) PERSONAS CON LICENCIA BAJO DEL SUB-CAPITULO H, CAPITULO 411, CODIGO DE GOBIERNO (LEY DE PORTAR ARMAS), NO DEBEN ENTRAR A ESTA PROPIEDAD PORTANDO UN ARMA DE FUEGO."



Download language

Penal Code Section 30.06(c)(3)(B) further states that a sign must meet the following requirements:

includes the language described by Paragraph (A) in both English and Spanish;
appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.
Please note that while the language provided above may be downloaded for convenience, it does not meet the requirements of Section 30.06(c)(3)(B) and may not be used as a sign.

[uh_clem]

  I have spent some time looking over the crime statistics at the TXDPS site and I found no evidence that the right to carry law reduced crime.

[TexasAggieHiker]

Most gun rights supporters want to ignore the first half of the amendment, which speaks about regulation.

In the context of a "well regulated militia", regulated means trained and able of defending the nation if need be.  Not the meaning as law inforcement regulations and laws.

[Roy]

Most gun rights supporters want to ignore the first half of the amendment, which speaks about regulation.

In the context of a "well regulated militia", regulated means trained and able of defending the nation if need be.  Not the meaning as law inforcement regulations and laws.

Regulated, as in controlled by, and subject to the laws of, under the orders of, etc.  Handgun training you can get anywhere, lots of people get military training for the country's defense, that's not what the 2nd Amendment says.  And "regulated" doesn't mean "outlawed", either.  The people who wrote the 2nd Amendment knew what they meant, and it hasn't changed no matter what Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore say.
Since the National Guard was created to replace the state militias, the anti-gun movement has made the case that since there was no longer a "milita", there was no longer any "right to bear arms".  They place all the emphasis on the first half of the amendment and ignore the second.  Pro-gun rights groups do exactly the opposite, ignoring the fact that it clearly states regulation is part of the deal. 
I think you have to enforce both.  People have the right to bear arms, but the're subject to laws that regulate them.  For the courts, the usual test is the "reasonableness" of a law or regulation.  I think it's reasonable for people to carry in Big Bend. OTOH, the grounds around the White House are also part of the National Park System.  The Secret Service gets to regulate guns in that particular area.

[Texan4life]

  I have spent some time looking over the crime statistics at the TXDPS site and I found no evidence that the right to carry law reduced crime.

Take this real life stat: A female in Austin Tx a couple months ago was attacked by a stanger who had followed her from a night club. The stanger attempted to rape the female but the female pulled a handgun from her purse and put a stop to that. A very brave woman who was able to protect herself thanks to a handgun.
I do agree that to carry you should be required to take CHL class. To be effective with a firearm in a high stress situation you need some type training.
The bottom line is that bad guys are going to carry guns regardless. Criminals do not care that it is against the law . The only people that are prevented from carrying firearms by passing laws are good and honest citizens.
There was an interesting news clip in Austin about a month ago about a group that wants to legalize open carry in Texas... that is crossing the line in my opinion.