This week's deadly shooting at North Illinois University hasn't prompted the Interior Department to table a request that it lift the ban against carrying loaded weapons in national parks. It only spurred the department to postpone consideration of the matter until next week.
According to the New York Times, Interior officials were to announce today that they would reconsider the existing ban against "concealed carry" in the parks. The shooting Thursday prompted the department to put that matter off until next week, the newspaper's editorial board said.
And so, out of respect for the dead and injured, who were killed by a handgun and a shotgun, the Interior Department has —what? Changed its mind? Thought better of its plans? No. It has merely postponed its announcement until next week.
Given the current political climate — in which the National Rifle Association calls the shots in Washington — we expect to hear soon that it will be legal to carry a loaded gun in the national parks. Fifty-one senators, all of them feeling the pressure of the NRA, have written to the Secretary of the Interior asking for this change.
If Illinois had allowed concealed carry on university campuses, would that have prevented the deadly shooting? We'll never know. But when was the last time you heard of someone with a concealed weapon, someone who wasn't a security guard or off-duty police officer, step forward in such a situation?
A year ago there was a deadly shooting in a Salt Lake City mall. And yet in Utah, one of the most conservative states in the nation and one where concealed carry is legal, only an off-duty police officer stepped forward to confront the shooter.
In the wake of Thursday's rampage the predictable debate over the pros and cons of concealed carry was contained in an article published today by Newsweek.
This is an emotionally charged debate, one that there doesn't currently appear to be a logical solution to -- there are countless Americans who believe they should be allowed to carry a weapon wherever they go, and just as many who find that appalling.
To find the national parks -- places of incredible beauty, poignant history, and even the cauldron of our country's birth -- the latest battleground for this issue shouldn't please anyone.
Comments
Art,
I spent 14 years with The Associated Press. From my experience mainstream media does not have an agenda, hidden or otherwise, to minimize the facts.
JoeSF,
I find it odd that you would hand out a "cheap shot" award for reporting the news. And yes, the Interior Department's decision is news, just as the university shooting is. Would you also hand out a "cheap shot" award to the many pro-gun commenters who have seized on the killing not too long ago of a young woman in a national forest in the Southeast to buttress their arguments?
Frankly, both your comments drive home the very point that I was trying to make with this post:
Kurt,
I agree that emotion can play a part in any debate around matters of individual freedom, death, etc. That is why it is always best to avoid grappling with these issues in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy. I guess the impulse to wag a finger in someone's face, rightly or wrongly, is just too much for some people.
In survival school you are taught to make a plan first. If you follow this rule, once you become exhausted, hungry and emotional you will have a plan that was laid out when you were rested, calm and rational. I think this makes sense when it comes to legislation as well.
Attempting to spin the actions of a mentally ill individual into an argument against sane, law abiding citizens being allowed the right to defend themselves just seems cynical and irrational to me.
I will not get into whether the media is biased. I think that if you reflected on that question honestly, you would have to admit that it is. Here is a link to a book review at the Virginia Tech website. You might want to read it.
http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2006&itemno=644
Kurt, sorry for butchering your name. Just to set the record straight as a CCP holder of the state of UT and having taken a course in Springville, UT at Rangemasters. I can tell you that they expressly make aware the gun laws and choice of private business owners to post their own gun rules. This has been enforced by all LDS church buildings and properties. This also includes the local movie theatre (i.e. Provo Towncenter Mall) for southern Provo, UT (Yes, they brought this specific incident up in our CCP class). You will be fined if you have a concealed weapon on "so-marked" private property. As a CCP holder I am even more careful than I would otherwise be to make sure I leave my gun in my car when entering such establishments.
While attending the Circus (at the Delta Center) with my family a few years ago I was sent back to my car from the gate becuase they did no allow you to carry even if you had a CCP. I was griping about it with a deputy from the Sheriff's office while walking back to our cars. All he had to say was..."they better hope nothing happens to me or my family if they're goign to take the right to protect them away from me". The point remains that criminals will never obey silly laws. Hell criminals carry in parks now. This is just making sure that the government knows who the good guys are. All CCP holders are fingerprinted and given a background check. What else could you want?
Kurt,
You said ….
There is simply no legitimate or substantive reason for a thoughtful sportsman or gun owner to carry a loaded gun in a national park unless that park permits hunting. The requirement that guns in parks are unloaded and put away is a reasonable and limited restriction to facilitate legitimate purposes—the protection of precious park resources and safety of visitors.
Thanks to your “unbiased reporting” many of us now have another reason to want to protect ourselves. For those interested the proposed law you are upset about says….
“The secretary of the interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm in any unit of the national parks system if
(1)The individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm: and
(2)The possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge is located.”
If you are so afraid of licensced law abiding citizens carrying firearms how can you feel safe allowing the police to have guns? Aren’t they citizens too? How about the rangers?
Sadly the tragedy the happened at MIU will be probably be repeated again. We all know this. This is why some of us want to keep the right to protect ourselves. It is why you fantasize a world where everyone is disarmed and harmless. You can wait for Angela Lansbury to figure out who did what to you, god forbid, if you like. It is still a free country. Let's keep it that way.
Joe
Joe,
Reporting 101: Get your facts right.
The statement you attribute to me in fact was a snippet of a letter sent by the Association of National Park Rangers, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, three groups that have histories working in the parks and which have a vested interest in the outcome of this debate.
And thanks for pointing out Sen. Coburn's amendment, although I also included it in my initial post, so I'm not sure you could claim I was being biased by overlooking it. In fact, if I truly were biased on this issue I certainly wouldn't have let any pro-gun comments appear on this site, would I?
As I've said a long, long time ago, I believe in constructive debate. We may not all agree with each other's opinions or positions, but through civil dialog sometimes we can understand each other a little better and see things in a different light.
You also are making a mistake by assuming my positions. I don't recall stating that I was afraid of law-abiding citizens carrying firearms. In fact, I don't recall taking a position on the 2nd amendment. To be truthful, in the past I've hunted and I have friends who own guns (none, by the way, who feels so at risk in a park to bring them along, legally or otherwise).
My point of raising this issue in this forum was not to dredge up a 2nd amendment debate, but rather to focus on a national park issue. I don't care who protects their home and their property by whatever means. My focus was on public lands, specifically national park lands. Now, I would guess your reply would be that it is indeed a 2nd amendment debate because your interpretation is that the amendment should allow you to carry anywhere you want to go.
Most of us accept that we're a nation governed by laws, and current laws prohibit the carrying of loaded weapons in most national park units. I personally see no need to change that law. I'm sorry you do.
Now, as I did on an earlier, similar thread, I'm going to bring an end to public discussion because this topic has been debated plenty.