In Virginia we just elected a rootin tootin gun shootin Democrat, Jim Webb, who also supports this legislation.  It has less to do with reminisence of the "Olde West" than with why citizens of a state give up their rights when entering a National Park.

There isn't one Park Ranger that would go camping/hiking in the National Parks without their side arm.  Not one.

There are many, very many, reasons to dislike G. Allen however, this isn't one of them.  So buck up and learn to love ALL the rights guarnteed to us in the Bill of Rights and not just those you happen to agree with.

M. Stewart
Arlington, VA

Just a reminder, no supreme court has ever said the Second Amendment addresses an individual right. It has been interpreted as a State right. It starts out A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State... and derives from the requirement of a military draft.

I heard on PBS that the reason Paul Revere was riding to warn the militias in Concord so they could unlock their arms from the central storage. They were not kept under the bed, or in the house in cities. Probably because whiskey and guns didn't mix, but also because a few rounds ammo could cost more than a man earned in a year so they shared.

I am reminded of the terrible hostage tragedy in Chechnya just 2 years ago, in which terrorists who used school children as human sheilds were able to escape in large part because of the interference caused by armed citizens trying to "help" and causing confusion and crossfire instead. Almost 350 hostages, half of them children, died. An article Peter Carlson called the best magazine writing of this century by the Post was in Esquire here.

Don't get me wrong; responsible gun owners don't scare me. It's the other kind.

I actually agree with it, and so does Jim Webb. He's a pro-guns guy, and so am I. Sorry to disappoint my anti-gun friends here on Raising Kaine. Thank you Rob, For the update. To save embarrassment since Webb supports this as well. I would delete the diary, or at the very least take it off the front page. Just my thoughts.

exactly. And sorry. I enjoyed your diary much more! =)

I don't think this should be a front pager.

Rob, thanks for being honest.

And, Jaime did already write about this, so.....

in the National Parks, I don't want to be forbidden to take a properly registered firearm on which I have been trained and certified as presently required under carry laws.  My sister was once attacked by a rabid animal which was shot by her husband (on their farm) before it got to her.  I used to laugh at my brother-in-law for never going out on their land without his sidearm, but then again, it sure came in handy.  When Virginia's carry law was first proposed I was against it, worried that it would lead to a rash of shootings by gun-totin' citizens.  I'm not aware of any such increase in gun crimes related to the carry laws.  I've represented a number of people who have carry permits, and they all appear to be extremely cautious about and well-aware of the circumstances under which they can use their weapons. The law deals harshly with misuse of guns.  Just don't think this proposal is such a big deal. 

In the late 80's we lived in a tenant house on a Goochland farm where a rabid raccoon attacked a family dog, a little dachsund.  The dog was put down, and several children were exposed.  I still don't care for raccoons.  I just can't imagine such an experience as you describe.

Some man near here was recently attacked in his yard by a fox and barely managed to keep it away, only because he a broom or a rake. His son killed it, and I was surprised because animal control didn't test.  I think this was in Schuyler (it was in the paper).

I like to hike solo, too, and I don't mind in the day, but I don't feel so safe at night w/o a loaded gun and a dog.  I've encountered people who are clearly disturbed.

By the way, in the last year I have heard stories from three different people who claim to have seen a cougar - Albemarle and Amherst.  I wonder if it's true.

There have been reports of a cougar up around good old urban Tysons Corner!  Several people reported seeing a big cat on the trails in that area last year.  And there've been two spotted at Andrews AFB.  If they can be there they can be in Albemarle and Amherst.

My sincere apologies for missing phriendlyjaime's diary (and other coverage) on this!  (Trying to do too much at once...)

I do want to say, though, while I've been a big supporter of Jim Webb from the start, along with most everybody else here, I don't think that should preclude full and open debate on issues in which I or others may disagree with Jim, including firearms regulation.

I do support the right to use guns for hunting and sport (and protecting one's home, although that sometimes backfires, so to speak).  I just think that guns should be subject to reasonable regulation where the public interest dictates it, just like other consumer items (cars, toys, etc.)

It doesn't seem right to me that communities are forced to allow guns in community centers (as Fairfax has been by the state legislature), that police are forced to allow anyone with a gun to walk into a police station or that society as a whole is prevented from allowing any kind of sanctuary anywhere from weapons.

I am overjoyed that we elected Jim Webb our Senator, and I look forward to giving him all of my input, when I agree with him and when I don't.

I sincerely hope Jim Webb thinks long and hard about this bill.  I am not a fan of this idea.

He already has and is one of the biggest gun supporters, vowed to reintroduce it when he takes office if it doesn't pass.

There are lawful restrictions on where one may carry weapons. It is appropriate to have these restrictions; especially in such public places as schools, libraries, courthouses, etc.

I've always considered the National Parks as a kind of natural refuge or sanctuary from the frenzied pace of modern life, and I've spent a lot of time there. I like the idea that I may resonably assume that the people I occassionally meet on the trail are not carrying concealed firearms. Personally, I feel safer that way, even with the possibility that I might encounter rabid animals or violent criminals while unarmed.

when weighing the question of where one might carry arms.  For instance, I've refused to have a gun in my home in Arlington county for very practical reasons.  Living in an urban area, if you shoot off a weapon you're likely to hit someone, and not necessarily the one you were shooting at.  Bullets go through apartment or house walls, people are around on the streets, cars are driving by.  Too many targets, not enough safety.  Plus, the police are a huge presence and usually respond within moments to any call for help, thus largely negating the need for self-help.  Also, read the list of items taken during burglaries in such urban or edge city areas, and you'll often see guns on the list.  So the bad guys are getting their guns from Harry Homeowner while he's out at work.

Then look at the more rural areas, where quite often it takes even a responsive police force 20 or 30 minutes to respond to an emergency situation.  In many counties there are small police forces covering huge amounts of territory, or the people have to rely upon state troopers who cover a tremendous amount of ground.  I would own a gun if I lived in a rural area.  This is the same reason I don't have a problem with allowing carry permits in the National Parks.  If you're a serious hiker you can be hours from any help.  Even though the chances of being attacked by a rabid animal or isolated fruitcake are not high, they still exist, and I should have the right to make a decision about whether I want to have protection with me in just such a case.  It may make you uncomfortable to think if you encounter me on the trail that I'm possibly armed, but it makes me uncomfortable to know that any man I meet on the trail could easily overpower me. 

As for those who point out that the second amendment actually speaks of militias, you're absolutely right.  The second clause is obviously dependent upon the first; however, a culture has grown up in this country of gun ownership.  Since the culture's there, and gun ownership is not going to go away, then the way to go is to insist on thorough training in the proper use and care of firearms, in educational programs addressing firearms laws, on strict restrictions against those with mental illness or criminal records having firearms, and on promoting the consumer safety of firearms.  I think the NRA has been incredibly irresponsible in digging in its heels and rejecting every sensible suggestion to make gun ownership safer for all concerned.  When the Second Amendment was written it took real skill, strength, and knowledge to simply load and fire a weapon one time.  Now any three year old can fire a pistol and weapons are unbelievably powerful and destructive.  There is no reason to oppose even basic requirements of proficiency on those who would own them.

 

In 1990 the supreme court did determine that "the right of the people" did actually apply to individuals.

Militia has been defined as any able body citizen male from 17 to 4X or any woman serving in the national guard. Sexism anyone =)

However in 1990 they also determined that the constitution only prevents the federal government from passing laws not state or local governments.

I don't see how that works but those are the facts.

Now as for rather or not individuals should be able to carry in a state park, I say why not?  Criminals aren't going to check there guns at the door and the park actually makes for an optimal crime/rape/murder area.