Senate OKs Loaded Guns In National Parks

(CBS/AP) The Senate has voted to allow people to carry loaded guns - including semi-automatic weapons - in national parks and wildlife refuges.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sponsored the measure, which would restore a Bush administration policy allowing loaded weapons in national parks.

www.cbsnews.com...

This is quite a coup considering the anti-gun stance of the new administration. Granted, it was a sneaky move by Senator Coburn, but he got what he wanted. I'll bet Harry Reid had a good old-fashioned hissy fit when he found out he'd actually helped pass something he opposed. Maybe they'll start reading the actual bill before voting on it.

----

While violent crime is rare in national parks, it does occur.

It used to be that being a ranger in Washington state's national parks and forests meant guiding people through the great outdoors and serving as caretaker to plants and wildlife. But as cities and suburbs rapidly encroach upon wilderness areas, drugs and violence have crept into the outdoors.

Whether it's meth labs hidden amid lush forests or car prowls at trailheads, park rangers and forest officers are seeing an increasing amount of criminal behavior."

seattletimes.nwsource.com...

Although the above article is from 2006, I can't imagine that it's gotten any better. My guess would be that it's gotten worse.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 19/5/2009 by Mirthful Me]

Excellent, have to wonder if there is enough to override a possible veto. Harry Reid has to play it safe on gun rights issue, Nevadans are very big on the 2nd amendment.

reply to post by DarkStormCrow


I'm guessing that since Harry didn't read the bill, there were others that opposed it that didn't read it either. A veto is probably imminent but unfortunate.

This is great news. I have always carried my pistol concealed when hiking and camping in our national forest. When you hike several miles out in the middle of nowhere, you should be able to carry some form of protection be it from wild animals or some murderer.

Just google "murders in national forest's" and you will see why I carry when camping!

reply to post by Mudman21


My first thought was that it would be good in case of a wild animal attack. Then I googled "murders in national forests" like you suggested and I can see why it would be prudent to carry for this reason too.

Once upon a time, there was a rumor circulating in my area about the local lake airstrip being used to smuggle drugs in from who knows where. You don't really equate national parks with drug smuggling and violent crime but it does happen quite frequently from what I found.

I've been hoping this would go through for some time now, maybe with some luck the crooks and morons on the hill will be too busy salivating over their soon-to-be ill-gotten gains from the Cap and Trade Scam they are shoving through and right up into the collective sphincter of the people.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Excellent, have to wonder if there is enough to override a possible veto. Harry Reid has to play it safe on gun rights issue, Nevadans are very big on the 2nd amendment.

As fellow Nevadan, I have to agree. Plus, there are getting to be some pretty unsavory characters in the national forests and parks.

And to a previous poster, the forests and parks have turned out to be pretty good places to plant their crops, as well.

[edit on 5/19/2009 by centurion1211]

The House could pass the gun bill as early as tomorrow. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said today that his chamber could vote separately on the gun legislation, allowing members to vote differently on the gun and credit card bills. The two measures would then be rejoined and sent to the president as a single bill, Hoyer said.

voices.washingtonpost.com...

If they do a separate vote, the legislation will probably tank. Although, like DarkStormCrow said, Harry has to be careful on the gun rights issue. Maybe he knowingly voted for it in order to keep his gun owning constituency happy.

[edit on 5/19/2009 by soldiermom]

[edit on 5/19/2009 by soldiermom]

[edit on 5/19/2009 by soldiermom]

[edit on 5/19/2009 by soldiermom]

Great, now we just need Illinois to join the rest of the country in allowing Conceal and Carry so that we too can protect ourselves while out hiking and camping. Last year, some people looking for morel mushrooms in my area has run-ins with the darker side of Illinois' out of wack gun laws. A body was found for one. And second, a woman with her two kids was mugged by two teenagers out in the middle of the woods. They pulled a gun on her and her two kids, beat the oldest kid with the pistol, stole their money and cigarettes, and then ran off. Luckily no one got killed. But if someone had, I'm sure the Illinois Politicians would blame the gun, rather than the ass-backwards gun laws here that prevent every Illinois resident from exercising their right to preserve their own lives.

Originally posted by DarkStormCrow
Excellent, have to wonder if there is enough to override a possible veto. Harry Reid has to play it safe on gun rights issue, Nevadans are very big on the 2nd amendment.

Yes we are. Even the Liberals here love their guns. Harry Reid is not liked by anyone here. He's just a shill and will do anything for another dollar in his pocket.

reply to post by Mudman21


It is perfectly legal to carry firearms into a national forest. It has been illegal to carry weapons into a national park. There is a difference.