Gun's, Parks & Whose Rights?

One would expect the NYT to not disappoint with a chance to be wrong about guns, and this Editorial doesn't disappoint. Forty seven US Senators wrote the Dept Interior to ask them to lift the ban on ready to fire guns in National Parks and Refuges. The NYT, naturally, thinks this is ludicrous and backs their assertions up with misleading or inaccurate (lying?) statements.

There is nothing confusing about the distinction between federal lands where hunting is allowed and national parks, where hunting is not. (Nor should someone who is confused by the difference be carrying a loaded weapon.) It is also no burden to unload a rifle and slip it into a case before, say, driving through Yellowstone.

Apparently, they've never been anywhere, it is pretty simple to tell Central Parks ends at the skyscrapers, that is not the case where refuges and parks abut unregulated Federal land, which is much more the rule than the exception. This piece is about inadvertent violations, since the NYT doesn't like guns it would fit their agenda to have your firearm confiscated and you charged for crossing an unmarked border in the wilds. That isn't what it's really about, the Senator's letter states, "... this rule infringes on gun owners’ rights and is “confusing, burdensome and unnecessary.” The NYT's view is:

The senators who signed this letter — led by Mike Crapo, an Idaho Republican, and Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat — insist that the federal government is infringing upon the gun-carrying rights granted by some states. As so often happens when guns are in question, the senators have forgotten to insist upon the rights of the vast majority of citizens, who choose not to carry guns.

They also appear to have forgotten that national parks and refuges are federal lands, set aside as peaceful preserves for all the species that enjoy them, including humans. Ready-to-fire guns have no place in them.

Now, I've read the BOR and I cannot find a guarantee of the right to not see guns, in fact I can't find anything that assures anyone any rights about arms other than the Second Amendment. Where hunting is banned or otherwise regulated doing something else is illegal, you face sanctions you won't like. If you start shooting up cans or something where recreational shooting is banned, you have a legal problem. As for "peaceful preserves" the NYT either hasn't watched one of the nature shows or the news, these are not your public library animals are busy doing animal things - some quite dangerous to humans - and some humans can't seem to manage ethics or law. A packed away or disabled firearm is not self-protection - it's luggage.

Unlike NYC, I live in a 3,000 square mile county that is over 50% Federal lands and it is not a peaceful safe environment. There are bears, cougars, coyotes, and probably some wolves, none of whom seem particularly concerned with the NYT's ideas of peaceful and some humans find it a friendly environment for illegal activity - something they protect with weaponry. I am always armed in those circumstances, though in twenty years of carrying I've never had reason to take out the gun. There are places you cannot shoot, no Parks, that are near facilities, which is only reasonable - though I'd violate that in a second rather than have a fist fight with a bear.

Do you suppose that if their little daughter were being mauled they'd ask me not to shoot? In the interest of the peaceful environment and National Park's regulations? I'm sure they'd be happy for me to stand by as a disinterested spectator...while they did what? Tell the critter that it's not nice to chew on a human? At that point it is way too late to try noise makers or safe camping or hiking practices, it's down to brute force and a gun trumps a stick.

It is a simple enough matter to regulate hunting and shooting, it's been done for quite some time and seems to be pretty effective, regulating carry in the wild is another issue altogether. One that NYT apparently is incompetent to speak to, though their First Amendment right doesn't allow for disqualifying them for stupidity, funny how that works.