Thursday, January 8, 2009

Kurt Repanshek: Lawsuits Against Park Carry

Kurt Repanshek wrote an article about 2 lawsuits that have been filed to fight the removal of the old ban on self defense in National Parks. His only sources were the NPCA, the CNPSR, & the Brady folks, so the article is all one sided, just regurgitating their unsubstantiated anti freedom rhetoric. However, there is some interesting commentary going on in the comments section you might want to check out or even participate in.

It is interesting for example that the author & the anti-freedom organizations he quoted feel it had been OK to infringe on our right to bear arms when we crossed an imaginary "loaded gun free zone" boundary so that they couldn't be scared of our holstered guns. If they're so scared of my holstered gun in a National Park (that they can't even see by the way), why do they go to the same crowded malls & movie theaters that I go to? Don't they know they pass by armed people all the time without even realizing it? There are armed undercover & off duty Police Officers, CCW permit holders, people open carrying, and (gasp) even armed criminals in their midst who based on existing laws are not even allowed to touch a gun, much less carry one.

The rules change only brings National Parks Regulations in line with the long existing regulations of National Forests which is simply to allow the States to set their own carry laws. Are they scared to go to National Forest land too? If the people who are scared of our holstered guns are willing to go to the Mall, why are they suddenly scared to go to a National Park that no longer infringes on our natural born but Second Amendment protected right to bear arms in defense of our lives & our families? We already carry everywhere else, crossing a National Park boundary isn't going to cause us to go berserk.

They attempt to justify the old ban by saying statistically we're less likely to be raped, killed, or mugged while unarmed in National Parks than on the streets of Washington DC or other high crime areas. To that I'd say tell that to a defenseless rape victim, or the surviving family of a murder victim. It mattered to the defenseless murder victims just before they drew their last breath, it matters to their surviving family members, it matters to crime victims who managed to survive, and it matters to me.

If that alone were not enough, there is in fact no "right to be free of senseless fears." There is however a right to bear arms. So I guess they'll either have to get used to those of us who have decided to accept the responsibility for the safety of our families, or push to add a new constitutional amendment that would state that everyone has a right not to be scared of senseless phobias.

Update 1: More from Las Vegas Review Journal.

Update 2: More from Sensibly Progressive.


Anonymous said...

Kurt, you wrote: "We already carry everywhere else, crossing a National Park boundary isn't going to cause us to go berserk."

No argument with your logic, as it is impeccable. But this statement groups COM regarding the fundamental intent of those who object - they would prefer that we don't carry ANYWHERE.

Dustin said...

Anonymous: Actually Kurt was the author of the article I linked to. My name is Dustin, but thanks for the comment, you are 100% correct. In every State that has removed their prohibition against concealed carry there were people claiming the result would be blood in the streets from shootouts over parking spaces. It never happened, yet here we are again, hearing the Brady folks claiming that removing the Federal infringement is going to cause mass death & mayhem.