New Gun Law May Have Unintended Affects in Yellowstone

Yellowstone Insider.com ^ | October 21, 2009

[Still Thinking]

Wednesday, 21 October 2009 15:33

A law loosening gun restrictions in America's National Parks goes beyond what proponents initially argued and would allow anyone with a gun permit to openly carry a weapon in Yellowstone National Park, if legal experts are correct.

A legislation, proposed and drafted by U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) was billed as a way to uniformly enforce gun laws across different states and National Parks, which are under federal supervision. The law was said to extend the state's guidelines concerning concealed carry into the federal National Park. If you had a permit for a concealed weapon in your own state and that right was recognized by the state hosting the National Park, then your permit would be recognized as well.

But the legislation, attached to a credit-card reform bill and signed by President Obama, reportedly goes beyond the concealed-carry recognition. Whether by design or accident, it removes concealed-carry provisions from the mix and basically allows state gun laws to take precedence in any National Park.That's the conclusion from the Jackson Hole Daily, which consulted with local legal experts.

We suspect the end result will be a little more complicated. Wyoming does indeed have a concealed-carry law -- you can see for yourself on the state's website -- and does indeed recognize concealed-carry permits from other states. (Websites specializing in explaining concealed-carry laws have come to the same conclusion.) However, Wyoming is one of the many states that allows citizens to openly carry a legally registered weapon. We looked at the law surrounding concealed carry in Wyoming and came to a slightly different conclusion after talking with experts. Indeed, Park Service officials in Washington, D.C. say they're still reviewing appropriate statutes before coming up with gun guidelines for each National Park.

Still, the fact that Park Rangers must add gun enforcement to their list of duties is not the most desirable of outcomes. Generally speaking, the vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens. The problem, however, doesn't lie with responsible gun owners; it lies with irresponsible gun owners, and they, too, exist; there were issues raised by gun owners openly brandishing their weapons during Obama speeches in Arizona and Minnesota this summer, as they went out of their way to openly carry legal semiautomatic weapons in large crowds waiting to see the President. Poaching, too, is still an issue in Yellowstone. And, quite bluntly, we can't think of many instances in Yellowstone National Park where anyone would need a weapon; we're not talking about an environment where animal attacks or human crime occurs with any degree of regularity.

In the Daily article, local attorney Kent Spence of Jackson's Spence Law Firm says he would feel more comfortable camping in the Yellowstone backwoods carrying a weapon capable of taking down a bear, though he admitted pepper spray would be his first line of defense. We're not so sure every other gun owner would be as comfortable or responsible should a bear attack.

[Still Thinking]

Whether by design or accident, it removes concealed-carry provisions from the mix and basically allows state gun laws to take precedence in any National Park.

Onoz! This is a national park! What makes those Congressmen, bought and paid for by the gun-lobby, think that what will work on the other side of that invisible line will work in here?

[Still Thinking]

BTW, anyone know why I can’t get “margin” tags or invisible gifs to put some blank space between the image and the article text?

[Ev Reeman]

I am pretty much OK with this because it is a federal crime to commit any kind of mayhem on any government reservation, military or otherwise as long as it is federal land.

[xone]

I wonder if the wimp writing this article had to change his panties after he finished.

[Still Thinking]

You mean you’re OK with state law prevailing? Me too. I just posted because I was offended by their dipweed Chicken Littling about it, like the sky was going to fall because, heaven forfend, the law will be the same in the park as everywhere else in WY. God forbid! There’ll be blood in the streets! Uh, trails. Blood in the trails.

[Boogieman]

“Still, the fact that Park Rangers must add gun enforcement to their list of duties is not the most desirable of outcomes.”

Why would they have to add gun enforcement to their duties? The citizens have a right to carry guns openly, these rangers don’t have any business enforcing anything unless someone starts shooting.

[Still Thinking]

Well he did have to menthion the eeeevil gunth. He probably had to lay down till his head stopped spinning.

[TChris]

BTW, anyone know why I can’t get “margin” tags or invisible gifs to put some blank space between the image and the article text?

Add "hspace" and "vspace" values to your "img" tag.

<img src="http://www.somesite.com/myimage.jpg" hspace="20" vspace="20">

[Still Thinking]

Yeah, wouldn’t there be MORE potential for enforcement time if there were MORE restrictions??? Liberals are idiots.

[Still Thinking]

Add "hspace" and "vspace" values to your "img" tag.

Thanks, T.

[Dan(9698)]

Wyoming is one of the many states that allows citizens to openly carry a legally registered weapon.

Wyoming does not require registration of weapons.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

The problem, however, doesn't lie with responsible gun owners; it lies with irresponsible gun owners, and they, too, exist; there were issues raised by gun owners openly brandishing their weapons during Obama speeches in Arizona and Minnesota this summer, as they went out of their way to openly carry legal semiautomatic weapons in large crowds waiting to see the President.

I think the writer of this hand-wringing diatribe might want to open a dictionary once in a while:

Brandish \ˈbran-dish'\ v

1. to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly
2. to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner

Wearing a weapon (as was done in Minnesota and Arizona) is not "brandishing". Unless, of course, Police officers are "brandishing" their sidearms as they wear them in public. No? Didn't think so.

[Still Thinking]

Yeah, I caught that too. Open carry may be legal but you certainly wouldn’t want to carry....openly. Or something.

[Still Thinking]

I’m sure that had there been any actual brandishing going on, those guys would have been face down and cuffed. (Presidential visit or not, brandishing without cause is illegal here in AZ, where one of the incidents took place)

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Inappropriate affects alert!

[Paladin2]

"we're not talking about an environment where animal attacks or human crime occurs with any degree of regularity."

The Griz only bites once.

[Still Thinking]

Tell Obama that. Maybe then he won’t be scared of Michelle.

[paul51]

And, quite bluntly, we can't think of many instances in Yellowstone National Park where anyone would need a weapon

Typical grabber refrain. Quite bluntly, I don't care what they think.

[Jagermonster]

Agree. Effects would be better.

[katana]

Don’t mean to quibble but misuse of the English language makes one look poorly educated, careless, and/or stupid. “Affect” is a verb. “Effect” is a noun and the correct word to use in this context. But if that is the original title at the linked article, then we can at least blame some school of journalism.