Re: It's now legal!

No, it's not legal yet.

Can we not allow guns on this site?!?!?

Argh!

I consulted "Off The Wall: Death In Yosemite"

At the end of Chapter Fourteen (Homicide) there is a list of homicides in and around Yosemite. I had to go back to Oct. 14, 1974 to find a gun homicide (page 569). Ostrander Lake Fire Road

"Laudenslayer of Redwood City, California was hiking with his fiance Marsha Ann Savko (of Redwood City). Laudenslayer dropped his pack and walked to the creek for water. She opened his pack 'looking for his canteen' but instead pulled out his .22 revolver, pointed it at him, and pulled the trigger (accidentally, she said) killing him. A jury found her guilty of involuntary manslaughter."

Interestingly, it wasn't she who was carrying the loaded gun...he was...he's dead.

The other nine homicides since (including the infamous Stayner) ranged from pushing people over cliffs to stranglings to stabbings. No guns involved.

It is doubtful Obama will veto the legislation because of this amendment. And IMO no one will notice the amendment is in force.

Quote
Vince
I consulted "Off The Wall: Death In Yosemite"

At the end of Chapter Fourteen (Homicide) there is a list of homicides in and around Yosemite. I had to go back to Oct. 14, 1974 to find a gun homicide (page 569). Ostrander Lake Fire Road

"Laudenslayer of Redwood City, California was hiking with his fiance Marsha Ann Savko (of Redwood City). Laudenslayer dropped his pack and walked to the creek for water. She opened his pack 'looking for his canteen' but instead pulled out his .22 revolver, pointed it at him, and pulled the trigger (accidentally, she said) killing him. A jury found her guilty of involuntary manslaughter."

Interestingly, it wasn't she who was carrying the loaded gun...he was...he's dead.

It is doubtful Obama will veto the legislation because of this amendment. And IMO no one will notice the amendment is in force.

Vince, it probably hasn't occurred to you that he wouldn't be dead if he had not been in violation of the law.
(Whether he deserves to be or not is perhaps another question. Let's give him a Darwin Award anyway.)

Personally, I plan on carrying my ice axe with me at all times to protect myself from the paranoidwackos [sic].
(WHACK THE WACKOS!)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2009 05:26PM by szalkowski.

Quote
Vince
And IMO no one will notice the amendment is in force.

I suspect we will see more gun shot wounds to animals. Someone mentioned to me yesterday a quotation from Tom Coburn (congressman who participated in sponsoring House bill) that indicated he was frightened by bears in Glacier 1-2 years ago and felt that he should have the right to use a weapon to protect himself against that animal (I do not have the exact quote and am unable to find the internet reference). The evening news stated that it would still be illegal to discharge the weapon in a National Park. However, I don't think there can be any doubt that there will be more injuries to and deaths of animals if there are more usable weapons in parks from acts of "self defense" and poaching (As I recall, the primary reason for the original law was to reduce poaching in the National Parks).

---

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

Quote
Frank Furter
I suspect we will see more gun shot wounds to animals.

I agree with that to some extent. Basically all this proposed law does is make legal what is already legal in the state anyway. I can't carry a loaded weapon in Yosemite because I don't live in California. Whether or not I really do is for you to wonder. What I'm saying is, lawbreakers will break laws. So it doesn't really matter what the law is, right?

Quote
Vince
What I'm saying is, lawbreakers will break laws. So it doesn't really matter what the law is, right?

Probably does matter what the law is because to be a lawbreaker, there must be a law. If there were no law, there would be nothing to be broken and no lawbreaker.

Gun discussions frequently get hijacked by irrelevant oversimplifications, cliches and nihilistic assertions, might as well list them here:

1. guns don't kill people, people kill people
2. guns are just tools
3. when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have gums
4. the second amendment is an absolute individual right
5. any gun regulation will eventually allow a political situation similar to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russa to develop
6. guns are not inherently dangerous (if the discussion concerns possession rights)
7. guns are inherently dangerous (if the discussion concerns construction of guns)
8. current laws are not followed or enforced therefore no new laws are necessary
9. gun ownership prevents crime
10. collateral injuries or deaths are inconsequential considerations compared advantages attributed to guns

---

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

Quote
Frank Furter

Quote
Vince
What I'm saying is, lawbreakers will break laws. So it doesn't really matter what the law is, right?

Probably does matter what the law is because to be a lawbreaker, there must be a law. If there were no law, there would be nothing to be broken and no lawbreaker.

Gun discussions frequently get hijacked by irrelevant oversimplifications, cliches and nihilistic assertions, might as well list them here:

(edit)

3. when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have gums

Yep thems missing toothers

Wasn't there a Park Ranger killed along the Tioga Pass road within the last 15 yrs? Maybe he was wounded. I seem to remember a story about it: A Park Ranger pulled over to question a pedestrian along the road and he pulled a gun and shot the Ranger. Anyone else remember that incident?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2009 04:39PM by mtn man.

I KNEW I should NOT have opened this thread

I am going to do something that I never get to do in real life when I make a boo-boo: pretend it never happened...bye bye!!

(I don't wanna ruin my pre-Yosemite good mood)

Quote
Bee
I KNEW I should NOT have opened this thread

You didn't.

i'm stickin' with my wrist rocket!

Quote
forrestranger
i'm stickin' with my wrist rocket!

The Vons in Mammoth sells them

I carry a pet puma on a leash. Probably not legal but nobody challenges me, especially when I let it loose to feed. It likes goats.

Jim

Quote
tomdisco
I carry a pet puma on a leash. Probably not legal but nobody challenges me, especially when I let it loose to feed. It likes goats.

Hot big is the litter box?

Quote
eeek

Quote
tomdisco
I carry a pet puma on a leash. Probably not legal but nobody challenges me, especially when I let it loose to feed. It likes goats.

Hot big is the litter box?

It uses a cat hole like the rest of us. Got it trained to follow Mike's instructions!

Sure would like to bury this new concealed gun law in a cat hole where it belongs.

Jim



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2009 07:19PM by tomdisco.

To me the whole thing about the guns is less of an issue than how this thing got through. They attached it to a credit card reform law?!?

Apparently our legal system is so pitifully botched up that some silly attachment like this can ride through on something that's bound to pass because people are fed up with credit card companies bullying them.

They couldn't have just x-ed out this stupid addition that had nothing to do with the rest of the law?!?

They couldn't see that it was just some special interest group taking advantage of this pitiful legal system, and do something about it?? All they could do was put it through like a bunch of lemmings?

Regardless of whether a person thinks that every man, woman, and child should be required to pack a loaded weapon 24/7, or thinks guns should be completely gotten rid of, can anyone explain logically why this law should have been passed because the credit card reform (or so it's called) was overwhelmingly supported? What bizarre relationship between the two can anyone dream up, that would explain it?

Yet no doubt the NRA and other special interest groups are patting themselves on the back and smiling that they got their legislation through...their "foot in the door". But did they get it by any means that anyone should take pride in? No, their hired weasels managed to weasel it in despite whether it was supported or not, simply by taking advantage of an inept legislative process. What's next? Find legal ways to rip off old ladies?

Not that others...environmentalists for example...don't do the same thing; tying up harmless things they don't happen to like by using "protected" species etc. Then being proud of having manipulated the system to their advantage.

Had I had anything to do with building a system of laws and legislation processes as miserably inadequate as this fine example demonstrates, I'd be ashamed. And if I was one of the ones who voted or signed it in, knowing people were being hornswoggled, I'd be even more ashamed. Pitiful. And we pay these people how much?

---

Gary
Yosemite Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/roberthouse/yo

Quote
Sierrafan
Had I had anything to do with building a system of laws and legislation processes as miserably inadequate as this fine example demonstrates, I'd be ashamed. And if I was one of the ones who voted or signed it in, knowing people were being hornswoggled, I'd be even more ashamed. Pitiful. And we pay these people how much?

Winston Churchill:
Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Speech in the House of Commons (1947-11-11)

It may not be as irrational as it appears on the surface. Many interested in "protecting the little guy" or concerned with preventing abuse of the powerless by systemic advantage conferred on another group (credit card companies) may be in favor of this concept of wider rights for gun owners. Many Californians may find it hard to understand how pervasive the desire is for individual self-protection in other parts of the country. I believe it is a continuation of the paranoia and xenophobia of the post-911 days, only more subconscious and more socially acceptable. That fear driven reasoning got us into Iraq and, I suspect, will continue to smolder in our collective psyche for many years. It is going to take many years for this thought process to change and for the realization to occur that gun "misadventures" are much more likely than gun benefits.

Frankly, I think it is just too much work and mental anguish to carry a concealed, loaded gun. Think about how many times you misplace your wallet, keys or cell phone. You just can't do that with a weapon. You need to know where that item is at all times, who might have access to it, whether it is locked up or not, and the location of the ammunition.

---

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

A decaying and foetid subject, but for anyone interested in pursuing the issue further, I pasted the entire press release, as I assume that is what it intended for:
The site includes a link to your local elected officials to find out how they voted.

http://www.npca.org/keep_parks_safe/

http://www.npca.org/media_center/press_releases/2009/guns_in_parks_statement.html

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: May 20, 2009
Contact: Bryan Faehner, Associate Director for Park Uses, National Parks Conservation Association, P: 202.731.1847

National Park Rangers and Park Advocates Outraged by Votes Allowing Loaded Guns in National Parks


Statement by Theresa Pierno, Executive Vice President, National Parks Conservation Association:

“We are disappointed in the members of the House and Senate who allowed this amendment to pass, as well as in President Obama. By not taking a stand to prevent this change, they have sacrificed public safety and national park resources in favor of the political agenda of the National Rifle Association. This amendment had no hearing or review, and will increase the risk of poaching, vandalism of historic park treasures, and threats to park visitors and staff.”

“These are special protected places, where millions of American families and international visitors can view magnificent animals and majestic landscapes and experience our nation’s history, including sites where lives were lost to preserve our American ideals.

“The Reagan Administration’s regulation requiring that guns carried into these iconic places be unloaded and put away is a time-tested, limited and reasonable restriction to carry out an important and legitimate goal of protecting and respecting our national parks, monuments and battlefields. It is a tremendously sad day that it has been thrown out by political leaders from whom we expect more.”

Statement by Bill Wade, Chair, Executive Council, Coalition of National Park Service Retirees:

“Passage of this legislation that would allow firearms of all kinds in national parks is an absolute travesty. There is simply no need for it, given the extremely low risks that visitors face in national parks compared with everywhere else.

“Legislators who voted for this amendment now have to live with the fact that they have, in fact, increased the risk to visitors and employees, as well as the risk to wildlife and some cultural resources. Moreover, they've just contributed to diminishing the specialness of this country's National Park System. We hope the American people register their disappointment in the actions of these legislators.”

Statement by Scot McElveen, President, Association of National Park Rangers:

“Members of the ANPR respect the will of Congress and their authority to pass laws, but we believe this is a fundamental reversal from what preceding Congresses created the National Park System for. Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting.”

Statement by John Waterman, President, U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police:

“One should ask, what do guns have to do with credit cards? We are disappointed that Congress chose to disregard the safety of U.S. Park Rangers, the most assaulted federal officers, and forgo the environmental process set up to assure the protection of our national parks. If signed by President Obama, this will clearly be a change in his rhetoric towards taking better care of our environment and protecting federal employees.”

---

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2009 04:08PM by Frank Furter.

Gun right has been shored up.

Next up: what's not guaranteed.