TexasCHLforum.com

Read this in today's Chronicle.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/edi ... 81438.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In its waning hours, the Bush administration’s Interior Department pushed through a measure to allow visitors to national parks and refuges to carry concealed weapons. This is a terrible policy.

Parks and refuges are among the safest places in the country. Crime — especially violent crime — is exceedingly rare in these settings, as are serious attacks by wildlife. Under these circumstances, why in the world would a visitor need or want to carry a handgun? The Supreme Court last year recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, but it left plenty of room for sensible gun regulations. Such regulations and, yes, restrictions are warranted here.

The Bush rule went into effect Jan. 9, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees have asked a D.C. federal judge to put the rule on hold. They ultimately hope to have the measure invalidated, arguing that the Bush administration failed to follow proper legal procedure in evaluating and adopting the rule. Specifically, they claim that federal law required — and that the administration refused to perform — an environmental assessment, which incorporates such factors as public safety and the “human environment.”

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is likely to hear the matter early next month. She should grant the temporary injunction. Such a pause would allow the Interior Department to conclude its 90-day internal review, wisely ordered by Secretary Ken Salazar, to determine whether proper procedures were followed in crafting and adopting the rule. If the judge ultimately concludes that procedures were breached, the rule would be thrown out; the Reagan-era rules restricting concealed weapons in the national parks and refuges would once again be in effect.

Even if the rules are deemed legally proper, Salazar should launch a formal re-evaluation of the concealed-weapons policy. No administration is empowered to overturn properly implemented measures from a previous administration without conducting in-depth analysis and gathering public comment. But such a process and expense would be warranted.

President Barack Obama has rightly called concealed weapons a menace to public safety. They should not be introduced into some of the most peaceful and pristine public lands in the country.

Lumberjack98 wrote:Read this in today's Chronicle.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/edi ... 81438.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In its waning hours, the Bush administration’s Interior Department pushed through a measure to allow visitors to national parks and refuges to carry concealed weapons. This is a terrible policy.

Parks and refuges are among the safest places in the country. Crime — especially violent crime — is exceedingly rare in these settings, as are serious attacks by wildlife. Under these circumstances, why in the world would a visitor need or want to carry a handgun? The Supreme Court last year recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, but it left plenty of room for sensible gun regulations. Such regulations and, yes, restrictions are warranted here.

The Bush rule went into effect Jan. 9, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees have asked a D.C. federal judge to put the rule on hold. They ultimately hope to have the measure invalidated, arguing that the Bush administration failed to follow proper legal procedure in evaluating and adopting the rule. Specifically, they claim that federal law required — and that the administration refused to perform — an environmental assessment, which incorporates such factors as public safety and the “human environment.”

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is likely to hear the matter early next month. She should grant the temporary injunction. Such a pause would allow the Interior Department to conclude its 90-day internal review, wisely ordered by Secretary Ken Salazar, to determine whether proper procedures were followed in crafting and adopting the rule. If the judge ultimately concludes that procedures were breached, the rule would be thrown out; the Reagan-era rules restricting concealed weapons in the national parks and refuges would once again be in effect.

Even if the rules are deemed legally proper, Salazar should launch a formal re-evaluation of the concealed-weapons policy. No administration is empowered to overturn properly implemented measures from a previous administration without conducting in-depth analysis and gathering public comment. But such a process and expense would be warranted.

President Barack Obama has rightly called concealed weapons a menace to public safety. They should not be introduced into some of the most peaceful and pristine public lands in the country.

My head is getting sore.

I just responded to this totally biased un-authored op/ed (under DaveP111).

I really liked the part about going through the public comment process...like it never occured.

AWB ban, this, I guess when it rains it pours.

Purplehood wrote:I just responded to this totally biased un-authored op/ed (under DaveP111).

I read that response and it was fantastic.

I've been so mad after reading that article that I didn't even know where to start.

This one really gets me; "President Barack Obama has rightly called concealed weapons a menace to public safety."

A menace to who? Responsible citizens that believe they are responsible for their personal safety (not the State). Or gun grabbing politicians that want to disarm society one little bit at a time.

I'm going back to banging my head on the wall for a while.

If this is the position of the Houston Chronicle as well as the Washington Post, it strikes me as grounds for subcription cancellelation.

You hadn't noticed this before? LOL Those are seriously leftist rags.

Why would amyone sunscribe to these rags anyway? When they do their annual telephone sweep looking for money, I tell them in as abrasive terms as I can think of in my fit of rage that I have no need for their paper since I don't have a birdcage or litter box that requires cleaning. I make it a point to be as rude and as rough as I can be, and to me it still isn't ever rough enough.. They're Liberals and I really don't care if I offend any of them..

Parks and refuges are among the safest places in the country. Crime — especially violent crime — is exceedingly rare in these settings, as are serious attacks by wildlife. Under these circumstances, why in the world would a visitor need or want to carry a handgun?

I keep hearing this reasoning, and it reminds me of when I was a lifeguard. There were some who I worked with that had the attitude of, "No one's ever drowned here before, so why should I have to pay that much attention?" And as we all know, there's always a first time (and there nearly was, at my pool). I'm starting to believe that a lot of the anti-gun reasoning stems from a lazy thought process more than anything else.

Oh, man. What garbage. Is the author stupid, ignorant, a liar or some combination thereof?

bdickens wrote:Oh, man. What garbage. Is the author stupid, ignorant, a liar or some combination thereof?

Three strikes!!!

The opinions expressed in this editorial show a level of original thought and logic at the level of a high school sophomore.

OMG, I love this response:

This tripe is complete and utter garbage. Who wrote this trash? What, ashamed to put your name to it? I sure would be!
Concealed Handgun licencees haven't caused any problems so far in the supermarket, the mall, city streets, churches or anywhere else for that matter in the 48 states that have them. That's right, 48 out of 50 states (including California!) have some sort of provision to allow citizens to legally carry defensive sidearms in public. When CHLs are up to 14 times LESS likely to commit ANY crime, why are they "...a menace to public safety?" The fact is that they aren't.
"...Why in the world would a visitor [to a National Park] need or want to carry a handgun?" Same reason that person would carry one anywhere else: there are predators out there who will kill you just to see you bleed.
Even if violent crime is "exceedingly rare" in National Parks, it isn't about the odds, it's about the stakes. If I could know ahead of time when me or my family was going to be attacked, we could change our plans. Since none of us are clarivoyant, I have to prepare in advance.
The anonymous yellow journalist who puked up this verbal vomit needs to pull his head out of where it got stuffed and bone up on some facts. Like the fact that the rule change was not only subjected to analysis and public comment, but that comment period was even extended

Tell us how you really feel.

This tripe is complete and utter garbage. Who wrote this trash? What, ashamed to put your name to it? I sure would be! The anonymous yellow journalist who puked up this verbal vomit needs to pull his head out of where it got stuffed and bone up on some facts.

I don't know who you are quoting, but rolling around in the mud and wrestling in pig slop makes both people stink.

WildBill wrote:I don't know who you are quoting, but rolling around in the mud and wrestling in pig slop makes both people stink.

It takes all types of messages to reach a large audience. When faced with utter and blatant lies to a massive audience, then the challenge needs to be concise, obnoxious, and to the point.

Gun owners encompass all types of people and a good percentage are down to earth, God fearing, Nascar watching, baseball playing good ole boys that will really react to an up front “Cowboy” respond to absurdity. Take me for example; I’m a college educated professional on the backside of middle age and if there is one thing I’ve learned, lies become truth if not challenged in a loud and relentless way. If this quoted response, and more importantly, the style in which is was presented, gets some of us “red-necked” gun owners off our duffs to get involved, join the NRA, write a congressman….. then that's what needs to be written.

As far as I can tell, the original editorial is pig slop; it’s just dressed up with liberal “make me look smarter than you” speak and the quoted response rings with me right down to the ground. There is not one thing in the response that isn’t true. Perhaps someone should simply paraphrase it so a liberal isn’t offended if that’s even possible.

In my youth I’ve worked hogs, & I’ve worked cattle and even a few goats now and then and one thing is true; if you turn your back on them, they will run you over. I see little difference with liberals.

(I really don’t like NASCAR)

Lumberjack98 wrote:President Barack Obama has rightly called concealed weapons a menace to public safety.

When did Obama ban the FBI and ATF and Secret Service from carrying concealed weapons?