TexasCHLforum.com

Lame attempt at creating a crisis out of thin air. The gun control nuts are really reaching with this one. Unfortunately, it will only get worse after January.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/27/ ... 230393162/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 (UPI) -- Confusion over gun control laws in national parks may mean some attending U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration will bring weapons, officials say.

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., and gun control groups say they're worried that because the Bush administration has changed federal regulations to allow people with permits to carry concealed firearms while in national parks, some people coming to the Jan. 20 inauguration outside the Capitol will be packing heat, the Washington publication The Hill reported Saturday.

The rule, however, forbids bringing guns into national parks located within districts that ban concealed weapons, which Washington does. But Norton, a longtime gun control supporter, said confusion about the rule change could make for trouble.

"It is truly frightening to think of what this could mean coming just a couple of weeks before the inauguration," she told The Hill.

Larry Pratt, executive director for the pro-gun rights Gun Owners of America, said Norton's fears are misguided, telling the publication, "People know enough to check on what the rules are."

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., and gun control groups say they're worried that because the Bush administration has changed federal regulations to allow people with permits to carry concealed firearms while in national parks, some people coming to the Jan. 20 inauguration outside the Capitol will be packing heat, the Washington publication The Hill reported Saturday.

The rule, however, forbids bringing guns into national parks located within districts that ban concealed weapons, which Washington does. But Norton, a longtime gun control supporter, said confusion about the rule change could make for trouble.

"It is truly frightening to think of what this could mean coming just a couple of weeks before the inauguration," she told The Hill.

Larry Pratt, executive director for the pro-gun rights Gun Owners of America, said Norton's fears are misguided, telling the publication, "People know enough to check on what the rules are."

It's really hard to understand their logic. They are "frightened" by the prospect of legally carried guns by law abiding citizens; yet no mention is made of guns carried by criminals who don't obey laws.

Yeah I don't think anyone that would be "packing heat" to that event with ill intentions would be lawfully carrying or would have made a different decision without the new park rule

It's a non issue for DC anyway. The national parks legislation basically says that the surrounding state's rules apply.

DC doesn't allow civillian carry of firearms, period, so there's "nothing for them to worry about"

If this is confusing to Mrs.Holmes-Norton, then she is either a moron, or assumes everyone else is.

I wouldn't attend regardless but... The idea of getting pounded into the ground by a gang of Secret Service agents because some kool-aid drinking Obamaton bumps into my pistol or little Timmy sees me printing, does not appeal to me.
Being within the law wouldn't keep me from getting hauled away in a black SUV. No thanks, I'll stay home.

They sure don't have to worry about me. Not only would I not attend Osama's - I mean Obama's coronaion under any circumstances, I also wouldn't spit on him if he was on fire.

DC doesn't allow civillian carry of firearms, period, so there's "nothing for them to worry about"

Does that mean that only military personnel will be allowed weapons during the coronation? If you are not in the military and subject to the UCMJ, you are a civilian.

HighVelocity wrote:I wouldn't attend regardless but... The idea of getting pounded into the ground by a gang of Secret Service agents because some kool-aid drinking Obamaton bumps into my pistol or little Timmy sees me printing, does not appeal to me.
Being within the law wouldn't keep me from getting hauled away in a black SUV. No thanks, I'll stay home.

But you must admit it would make for a great post in the Never Again forum

If they fear handguns they should disarm the DC police, Capitol police, park police, Secret Service, etc. at the inauguration.

I'm not holding my breath.

It makes you wonder how many permits they (D.C.) has issued for their residents to carry in the district???

I know there was only going to be one so far...Heller (Permit No. 01), I guess there will only be a handful granted after that one...And it'll take some time to get those issued...

Seems to me the District would benefit from recognizing the diverse laws and ordinances from around the nation, and allow things like prostitution, gambling, marijuana use, and more liberal acceptance of firearms in the district to be the norm, because of the diverse population coming in from around the nation...It might spur a rise in vacations and visitations to some of the unique history that lies within the borders of that piece of the pie...Mo money, means mo jobs, and possible moving some people from a life of crime to one of a support industry to people coming in for visits to the Nations Capital...

Right???

Or am I dreaming???

Oh, I don't know, Stevie. I think D.C. is already a very attractive destination for a certain segment of tourists...wait for it...violent criminals.

Just so happens I was crunching numbers anyway, so comparing data in the Uniform Crime Report shows us the per capita crime rate in D.C. in 2007 compared to that in the state of Texas:

Murder in D.C.: 522.03% the rate in Texas
Rape in D.C.: 92.35% the rate in Texas
Robbery in D.C.: 446.55% the rate in Texas
Aggravated Assault in D.C.: 203.57% the rate in Texas

Controlling guns instead of criminals sure works well, doesn't it?

Lodge2004 wrote:"It is truly frightening to think of what this could mean coming just a couple of weeks before the inauguration," she told The Hill.

Have you ever wondered where the supporters of Jim Crow laws went after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed?

Based on the bigotry, hatred and outright lies they spread to deny a basic human right, it sounds like many of them went to work for the Brady Campaign.

HighVelocity wrote:I wouldn't attend regardless but... The idea of getting pounded into the ground by a gang of Secret Service agents because some kool-aid drinking Obamaton bumps into my pistol or little Timmy sees me printing, does not appeal to me.
Being within the law wouldn't keep me from getting hauled away in a black SUV. No thanks, I'll stay home.

Well, look at it this way...It might be warmer in the black SUV if it did come to that...Right???

stevie_d_64 wrote:It makes you wonder how many permits they (D.C.) has issued for their residents to carry in the district???

I know there was only going to be one so far...Heller (Permit No. 01), I guess there will only be a handful granted after that one...And it'll take some time to get those issued...

Seems to me the District would benefit from recognizing the diverse laws and ordinances from around the nation, and allow things like prostitution, gambling, marijuana use, and more liberal acceptance of firearms in the district to be the norm, because of the diverse population coming in from around the nation...It might spur a rise in vacations and visitations to some of the unique history that lies within the borders of that piece of the pie...Mo money, means mo jobs, and possible moving some people from a life of crime to one of a support industry to people coming in for visits to the Nations Capital...

Right???

Or am I dreaming???

As far as I know, DC does not give out permits to carry. They require a permit to possess a handgun in your home.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong.