Are You A Poacher If You Support The Right To Self-Defense?

NRA-ILA ^ | June 13, 2008 | staff

[epow]

One of the most basic rights we as lawful Americans enjoy is the right to defend our families and ourselves. The right to self-defense should not end simply because one crosses an invisible boundary line and enters a national park or wildlife refuge.

This is the current, dangerous situation that will continue to exist, however, if you don’t take action right now.

The U.S. Department of the Interior has issued a proposed rule to eliminate, once and for all, this prohibition on Right-to-Carry in national parks and wildlife refuges. NRA is leading the effort to change this policy and we are very close to winning this important battle.

Not surprisingly, anti-gun and anti-hunting extremists are contorting the facts to try to continue this prohibition of self-defense.

The radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is equating lawful gun owners and ethical sportsmen to poachers, launching e-mail broadsides in an all-out push for its supporters to oppose this reasonable measure. (Read a recent HSUS attack e-mail here: https://community.hsus.org/campaign/US_2008_parks_poaching/explanation).

These new rules cannot take effect until after a period of public comment. And make no mistake; our opponents are aggressively ramping up their efforts to try to convince the Secretary of the Interior to reverse his decision.

To combat this effort, you must take a few moments to submit comments on this issue by June 30, 2008, by going to this web site: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=090000648053d497.

You may also mail your comments to:

Public Comments Processing Attn: 1024-AD70 Division of Policy and Directives Management U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222 Arlington, VA 22203

Your comments will have the most impact if you use your own words. To assist you in drafting your comments, keep the following points in mind:

* Rules on carrying and transporting firearms should be consistent-across the board-with the laws of the state that includes the national park or wildlife refuge; * Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges; * The new rules should provide uniformity across all federal lands, eliminating the patchwork of laws that create confusion for gun owners; * Current regulations fail to account for the significant change in state laws since 1984. 48 states now have laws that permit laws that permit carrying and 40 have strong Right-to-Carry laws. Federal regulations should recognize the change in state laws and follow their lead, and; * The new regulations should restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for all lawful purposes on most DOI lands, just as they do now on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands

Remember, all comments must be received by June 30. Submit your comments TODAY! Please share this information with your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners and encourage them to act on this issue RIGHT AWAY by sending comments of their own!

[epow]

Only 15 more days to send a comment, do it now and have your family and friends also comment. National Parks are becoming dangerous hangouts for armed violent criminals looking for easy prey, and they know law abiding campers and visitors aren't armed. We need the right to protect ourselves and our families when we take our families into our nation's great national parks.

[GladesGuru]

As a matter of fact, Florida passed a law allowing CCW in national Forests in Florida AFTER a rapist left St. Pete, traveled to the Ocala Nat. Forest, and raped and killed two girls.

When the perp was asked why he traveled all the way to the Ocala National Forest, he said “In the National Forest, nobody got guns”.

Florida then quickly passed a law allowing weapons in National forests in Florida.

Perhaps this incident might be of some help in rallying support for allowing firearms on all park lands.

[Pearls Before Swine]

One of the most basic rights we as lawful Americans enjoy is the right to defend our families and ourselves...

Theoretically speaking, in many jurisdictions.

[epow]

A young woman was recently raped and then murdered after being held captive for several days by a humanoid predator who took her captive while hiking alone on the federally managed Appalachian Trail here in north GA.

She was unarmed of course because she was hiking on a federal DOI managed trail. If she had been armed chances are she would be alive and well today, but thanks to our government's insane anti-gun attitude she died a horrible death that could have been prevented if her constitutional right to keep and bear arms had not been violated by a DOI rule. Thousands of national park visitors will be victimized by criminals this summer, and most of those attacks could be prevented if we were allowed to exercise our 2ndAmendment rights on federally managed lands. This is probably the last chance we will have in a long time to have a say on this issue, because if Obama is elected his DOI secretary will no doubt be a liberal anti-gun not who will not even consider rescinding the current anti-self defense policy on national parks and monuments.

I am leaving now for a Father's Day church service and won't be here to bump this post. I hope someone will do that while I'm away from the puter today because this article needs to be seen and action taken by all FR gun owners and constitutionalists.

[chesley]

bump

[btcusn]

got yer back
bump

[c-b 1]

bump

[righthand man]

bump

Remember, all comments must be received by June 30. Submit your comments TODAY! Please share this information with your family, friends, and fellow firearm owners and encourage them to act on this issue RIGHT AWAY by sending comments of their own!

[TimSkalaBim]

I take the point of this article, but have a problem with the verbiage about "an invisible boundary line".

The right to self-defense should not end simply because one crosses an invisible boundary line and enters a national park or wildlife refuge.

"Invisible boundary lines" do matter, the most important being the northern and southern borders of the United States. Outside those borders, the rest of the world does what it wants. Within those borders, our rights should be protected in their entirety. I think it would be better to simply state that National parks should not be Constitution-free zones.

[epow]

Thanks guy, and thanks to all of you who gave it a bump. I’m having trouble posting today. I don’t know if it’s my machine or FR, but I can only get on the site for a minute or two and then everything locks up.

[William Tell]

GladesGuru said: "Florida then quickly passed a law allowing weapons in National forests in Florida."

There is a distinction between National Forests and National Parks. I don't think the two of them are even controlled by the same government agency.

Here in Kalifornia, firearms are allowed in National Forests by both the state and federal governments, subject to state laws. National Parks are under a policy which bans the carrying of firearms completely.

If Florida had to change its laws to allow firearms in National Forests, then it was a state problem and has no relevance to removing the federal ban on carrying firearms in National Parks.

[epow]

Bump

[epow]

I don’t know about the FL situation, but I do know that in GA as of 7/1/08 GA Firearms License holders (carry license) will be able to carry guns openly or concealed in state parks and monuments, something we have been trying to get passed for years but couldn’t as long as Democrats controlled the Georgia State Assembly and the Governor’s office. Now we need that same right restored in national parks in every state, which is the point of this article.

[GladesGuru]

The “state problem”, as you put it, I specifically chose as an example because it exists in all other states - sometimes predatory humans can only be controlled with a gun.

Even the dimmest intellect amongst the BeltWay-Bandit-Bunch understands that when enough of the public states it will no longer allow rapists and murderers to prey on a disarmed public in the National Parks, the 2nd Amendment suddenly gets their support.

The legalism of National parks being somehow different is just that - a legalism. When an outraged public makes it clear they won’t allow the parks to be a hunting ground for criminals any longer, that legalism will vanish.

[supercat]

I wonder what the effect would be of strongly suggesting that people who are carrying firearms they are not legally going to be able to shoot other than in self-defense, (1) clean their guns prior to carrying them [not a bad idea in any case], and (2) not carry cleaning supplies with them. If a game warden hears a gunshot at a time when there shouldn't be any, and then sees someone carrying around a gun, an inspection of the gun to show that it has neither been cleaned nor fired lately should avoid hassles for the person carrying it.

If the purpose of the gun ban is to prevent poaching, the above rule would pretty well take care of that I would think.