Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

Opinion


VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'Running up and down with guns'

On Feb. 23 the Los Angeles Times reported: "In a victory for gun-rights advocates, the federal government is preparing to relax a decades-old ban on bringing loaded firearms into national parks.

"Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said Friday that his department would suggest new regulations by the end of April that could bring federal rules into line with state laws concerning guns in parks and public lands. ... Fifty ... senators ... from both parties have backed a drive to repeal the ban. ..."


Most Popular Stories
  • THOMAS MITCHELL: Sacrificing free speech won't appease fanatics
  • EDITORIAL: Stood her ground
  • Smart meters not all they're cracked up to be
  • LETTERS: Nursery did the right thing with laborers
  • EDITORIAL: Numbers stink?
  • EDITORIAL: Going to extremes
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Some things are worth fighting for
  • LETTERS: Teachers not most important learning variable
  • LETTERS: Agassi remains a good citizen
  • SHERMAN FREDERICK: Here's a scary thought




  • Note the change would see federal authorities -- weirdly, given their almost universal insistence on federal pre-eminence -- allowing different rules in different states, deferring to states that disarm interstate travelers. This is akin to the federal government saying blacks and whites must be treated equally in the parks -- except in certain benighted Southern backwaters, where Uncle Sam will defer to local rednecks who prefer separate "white" and "colored" bathrooms, etc.

    The proposed change would do no good in California, for instance, where state law (in violation of both the Second and 14th Amendments) prohibits loaded guns in parks unless they're locked inside a car trunk or similarly inaccessible.

    "It's a place of refuge, not a place for hunting, and it's patrolled by state park rangers who are there to protect visitors," California State Parks spokesman Roy Stearns explains to the Los Angeles Times.

    I don't know about California -- where we've had some lady joggers dragged off by lions in recent years -- but rangers elsewhere don't seem to be doing all that well.

    In the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in 2006 -- the most recent year for which we have records -- one man was stabbed to death by a drunk and, in a separate incident, a woman was shot dead. Also that year, on the Blue Ridge Parkway, a woman parked at an overlook and wearing headphones while studying for final exams "was killed by a handgun by a suspect on a killing spree," the Park Service says.

    At the Amistad National Recreation Area that same year, a woman was found floating in a reservoir in about five feet of water. "She appeared to have blunt force trauma to the head and was possibly stabbed," the agency said.

    Two more 2006 murders were reported in Washington, D.C., area "park units" -- both gunshots to the head.

    And the "relatively small" count of 11 violent deaths in the national parks in 2006 doesn't include rapes, other non-fatal assaults, or places from which law-abiding citizens are now de facto excluded, such as the Saguaro National Monument west of Tucson, where locals say the stream of illegals being hauled north by their "coyotes" can make the place resemble an old-fashioned stock car track.

    "If you're hiking in the back country and there is a problem with a criminal or an aggressive animal, there's no 911 box where you can call police and have a 60-second response time," explains Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

    Half the U.S. Senate seems to agree. "While park rangers now use bulletproof vests and automatic weapons to enforce the law, regular Americans in states where conceal-and-carry law exists are denied the opportunity for self-defense," explains Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

    So, if 50 U.S. senators are of a mind to start restoring some of our purloined constitutional rights, what's the hang-up?

    Aha. Also back in February, The Associated Press found Senate Republicans protesting that "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is trying to protect the two leading Democrats for president by shielding them from a difficult vote on an issue that many rural voters consider crucial" -- the proposal, lodged in the current public lands bill, to restore the right of law-abiding citizens to carry their loaded firearms in the national parks.

    But why should the vote be "difficult"? As I've pointed out before, every candidate for national office who I've interviewed since 1994, regardless of party, has insisted, "I support the Second Amendment."

    Why shouldn't Sen. Reid just let Sens. Clinton and Obama -- and big-government nanny-stater John McCain, for that matter -- prove they mean what they say, by allowing them to vote to restore this vital right on government lands?

    Because when Washington politicians say "I support the Second Amendment," what they mean, of course, is, "I support the Second Amendment ... which I interpret to mean that only our federal police have the right to bear arms, a monopoly they're free to enforce by, oh, gassing and burning scores of women and children in some rural Texas church as an object lesson to any other pesky Christians who might try to gather together enough legal firearms to form some kind of, you know, non-government 'militia.' "

    Bill Wade, executive council chairman of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, told The Los Angeles Times last month that people could be discouraged from visiting certain parks, such as Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, where he served as superintendent, if they knew the Second Amendment was in force, there.

    "How many of you would want to go out there if you knew that people were running up and down the Appalachian Trail with guns?"

    Gee, I don't know, Bill. Do you avoid police stations because the law-abiding Americans there are armed? Military bases? Why would you come to America in the first place, if you didn't like the idea of mere peasants "running up and down with guns"?

    It was James Madison, in The Federalist No. 46, who dismissed concerns that the new central government he and his buddies proposed could ever impose tyranny on these shores, since any encroachments on our liberties by the new government "would be opposed (by) a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands."

    "Before a standing army can rule," added famous Federalist Noah Webster -- who would later define "bearing arms" in his dictionary to include carrying a pistol in your pocket -- "the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." But, "The supreme power in American cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword," Webster continued, back in 1787, "because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

    "The whole body of the people are armed," Mr. Wade. With "arms in their hands."

    In order to get their Constitution ratified -- without which we'd have no federal gun police, and no income-tax loot to fund them -- that's the way they promised us it would be.

    Vin Suprynowicz is the Review-Journal's assistant editorial page editor.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 21 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Report abuse

    Derek Radman wrote on April 14, 2008 05:52 PM: Vin,
    I just want to commend you on your diligent efforts for obtaining and reporting the truth setting "political correctness" aside. This is what the people need to hear. The truth, not the usual liberal rhetoric set fourth only to brainwash the weak-minded into giving up our rights that were earned with the blood of our forefathers. It is sad to see how many citizens of this country do not appreciate the lives that were spent to preserve our freedoms. Certain individuals running for presidential office are included into the group of unappreciative citizens in my opinion. Please keep up the awesome work!


    Report abuse

    Oracle of Delaware wrote on April 08, 2008 05:15 AM: Odd, isn't it, that the Feds want "one size fits all" compliance of every law everywhere except universal acceptance of firearm carry permits.


    Report abuse

    Bill Smith wrote on April 03, 2008 05:09 AM: I don’t obey these laws in the first place and I will do no harm. Am I a criminal? Yes I am. We are ALL criminals in Amerika, every single one of us is a criminal. We have so many local, state, and federal (soon to be North American Union as the highest) laws that they would fill many airplane hangers, not to mention judicial decrees. Every single person in this country breaks many laws every day. In other words, there is NO SUCH THING as a law-abiding citizen in Amerika.


    Report abuse

    Bob Robertson wrote on April 01, 2008 06:49 PM: "You cannot be serious. Do they WANT tourists to be eaten alive?"

    Yes. This would create the appropriate environment, called "fear", which leads people to give ever more power and control to the state.

    There is no other reason for declaring a gun-free zone: The only people who obey are the ones who are not going to do any harm in the first place.

    Criminals carry weapons anyway, making the entire exercise a farce.

    It's not like this is anything new...

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."


    Report abuse

    Mutineer wrote on March 31, 2008 01:37 PM: Bear skulls are plenty thick...that's why low powered side arms won't do anything but make the thing even more angry.

    However, a well placed direct shot to the skull with a .44 mag can and will bring down a bear. I've read about and talked with hunting enthusiasts that go bear hunting with them.

    Mountain lions really don't want to stick around...just the report of the shot will send them off. Coyotes also, but lately I've found some very hungry ones that are not intimidated whatsoever. Maybe after Buffy the Poodle is eaten by one you might consider carrying...or maybe not.

    As for the worry of people "running" around parks with sidearms, the fear is simply ludicrous, and evidence of pop culture's campaign to make firearms "icky".

    When traveling around Arizona, I notice many common people carry sidearms, out in the open, and it is not unusual to be standing in line someplace and notice the person in front of you toting a Vaquero .45 Long Colt. The best thing about this, is that you have the right to carry...but you really don't need to, as the crime rate in these areas is very low. Crime that I have heard about, is met with strong citizen resistance, e.g., side arms drawn and the perpetrator left with nothing to do but surrender.

    Try walking through anyplace in Kaleeforneea unarmed and not watching your back....needless to say a national park.


    Report abuse

    Paolo wrote on March 31, 2008 05:21 AM: Thanks, Bill Smith. Yes, a .44 mag, aimed properly, will take down just about anything. It is far more effective than waving your arms, yelling loudly, and backing away slowly (the official National Parks advice if you confront a grizzly).

    The only thing this is likely to accomplish is that you will not only feel like an idiot, but act like one shortly before your demise. Thanks, National Park Service!


    Report abuse

    Bill Smith wrote on March 31, 2008 04:06 AM: I see we have more fools out in force. A .44 mag is more than capable of bringing down a bear.


    Report abuse

    Paolo wrote on March 30, 2008 05:48 PM: By the way, I agree that the S & W .500 would be preferably to the .44 magnum in the event of a grizzly attack.


    Report abuse

    Paolo wrote on March 30, 2008 05:46 PM: Folks, a .44 mag is not a guarantee in a grizzly attack, but it certainly gives you a fighting chance. The official National Parks advisory--to wave your arms and yell loudly while backing slowly away from the bear--is probably somewhat less effective against grizzlies than is the .44 magnum.

    The same strategy of arm waving and yelling is also not guaranteed effective against a hungry mountain lion.

    A .44, aimed properly, will bring down a grizzly or a mountain lion. Fortunately, I have not had the opportunity to test this out.

    Obviously, the National Park "Service," given the choice of allowing human beings to defend themselves, or saving the life of an attacking bear, favor the bear over the human.


    Report abuse

    John F wrote on March 30, 2008 03:14 PM: TimeRanger,

    Absolutely.


    Read All Comments