Re: Fresno Bee article on firearms in Yosemite

Yosemite officials say the park qualifies as an unincorporated area with a gun-firing ban.

while law abiding citizens are trying to figure out whether they can or should bring a firearm into the park, criminals already are (they could careless about any law).

Quote
forrestranger
while law abiding citizens are trying to figure out whether they can or should bring a firearm into the park, criminals already are (they could careless about any law).

So-called law-abiding citizens have always flaunted the law and brought firearms into the park.
Oh, wait! That makes them criminals anyway!
Nevermind.

Quote
szalkowski

Quote
forrestranger
while law abiding citizens are trying to figure out whether they can or should bring a firearm into the park, criminals already are (they could careless about any law).

So-called law-abiding citizens have always flaunted the law and brought firearms into the park.
Oh, wait! That makes them criminals anyway!
Nevermind.

and you got this information from where?? what is your source?

Quote
forrestranger

Quote
szalkowski

Quote
forrestranger
while law abiding citizens are trying to figure out whether they can or should bring a firearm into the park, criminals already are (they could careless about any law).

So-called law-abiding citizens have always flaunted the law and brought firearms into the park.
Oh, wait! That makes them criminals anyway!
Nevermind.

and you got this information from where?? what is your source?

Do past posts on this forum qualify? (They would be in the General Discussion section now.)
I recall several posts over the past approximately 5 years where people mentioned having firearms inside the park. In particular, I remember one where Vince had posted that his sister carried a weapon.

Firearms are in Yosemite and have been for decades. And did you notice until just now?

Quote
szalkowski

Quote
forrestranger
while law abiding citizens are trying to figure out whether they can or should bring a firearm into the park, criminals already are (they could careless about any law).

So-called law-abiding citizens have always flaunted the law and brought firearms into the park.
Oh, wait! That makes them criminals anyway!
Nevermind.

Maybe they are just grownup kids--- remember when you got a cap pistol or bow and wanted to take it along on the camping trip?

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
forrestranger
while law abiding citizens are trying to figure out whether they can or should bring a firearm into the park, criminals already are (they could careless about any law).

However - the Reagan era rule was intended to reduce poaching in NPS areas where hunting specifically isn't not allowed. There are some limited number of NPS units where hunting is allowed and loaded firearms were legal under that rule.

It was pretty simple - someone had a loaded/unloaded gun out and it wasn't legal under the rule. So an LE ranger notices it and can confiscate the weapon. Under the new rule, someone could have a loaded weapon and an LE ranger can't do anything except perhaps inspect it according to whatever state law is in effect. The person still has the weapon and can can still poach if that's the intent.

Quote
forrestranger
while law abiding citizens are trying to figure out whether they can or should bring a firearm into the park, criminals already are (they could careless about any law).

The national parks have been among the safest areas of this country. I am a little concerned about indulging or validating what may be an unreasonable sense of fear about safety in the parks. I admit to anxiety in the national forests because there are guns frequently there. Makes me want to carry myself! That anxiety represents a problem not from criminals, but a general wariness of others with guns. Just as when shooting trap or hunting one needs a little attention to how the other guy is behaving and whether he is being careless with his weapon. Defensive gun safety means keeping an eye on the other guy's gun. I just find that an annoying distraction in the national parks.

Can someone explain to me, if guns are protective or improve security, why are they prohibited in areas that we wish to make secure?

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
Frank Furter
Can someone explain to me, if guns are protective or improve security, why are they prohibited in areas that we wish to make secure?

Political correctness? Lack of understanding? Desire to enact laws based on ideology rather than demonstrable facts? Just a few possibilities.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/23/2010 06:30PM by traildad.

Quote
traildad

Quote
Frank Furter
Can someone explain to me, if guns are protective or improve security, why are they prohibited in areas that we wish to make secure?

Political correctness? Lack of understanding? Desire to enact laws based on ideology rather than demonstrable facts? Just a few possibilities.

Rational thinking.

The desire to carry openly a sidearm in Yosemite is a demonstration of the fact that one has a gonadal issue.

---

Old Dude

Quote
traildad

Quote
Frank Furter
Can someone explain to me, if guns are protective or improve security, why are they prohibited in areas that we wish to make secure?

Political correctness? Lack of understanding? Desire to enact laws based on ideology rather than demonstrable facts? Just a few possibilities.

I previously mentioned that the original rule (I think it wasn't even a law) came during the Reagan administration and was designed to make it easier to stop poachers.

Quote
y_p_w

Quote
traildad

Quote
Frank Furter
Can someone explain to me, if guns are protective or improve security, why are they prohibited in areas that we wish to make secure?

Political correctness? Lack of understanding? Desire to enact laws based on ideology rather than demonstrable facts? Just a few possibilities.

I previously mentioned that the original rule (I think it wasn't even a law) came during the Reagan administration and was designed to make it easier to stop poachers.

The converse does not apply here. The rule was not vitiated to make it HARDER to catch poachers.
The social context has changed and weapons are viewed as a political statement and as a method of self defense for the masses.
For example, it is now acceptable to carry firearms in Starbucks.
I suspect that soon weapons will be carried by the most fashion conscious as accouterments to the wardrobe.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
Frank Furter

I suspect that soon weapons will be carried by the most fashion conscious as accouterments to the wardrobe.

You will need to turn the volume up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_DVcclz4l0

now THAT i have to admit was funny. lolol