You are here

NPCA Backs Call For Ban On Assault Weapons

Share

Four years after it lobbied hard against a proposal to allow national park visitors to arm themselves with firearms, the National Parks Conservation Association is backing a move to block assault weapons sales.

NPCA President Tom Kiernan last week called U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein's legislation to ban the "sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing" of a wide range of assault weapons one step towards making national parks safer for visitors and wildlife.

The senator's legislation if signed into law would not only ban 150 specifically-named assault weapons, but also "an additional group of weapons that accept detachable ammunition magazines and have one or more military characteristics," said Mr. Kiernan in a prepared statement. "The bill would also ban high-capacity ammunition magazines. If passed, this bill would apply to our national parks. The National Parks Conservation Association strongly supports it and encourages Congress to vote for it.

"Nearly four years ago, a law was enacted allowing guns in national parks, specifically authorizing people to carry firearms into national parks to the extent allowed under state law. We aggressively opposed the 'guns in parks' law which made it legal for people to carry assault weapons into many national park units. Some states also allow for open carry of such weapons," he went on. “National parks are places where families, wildlife watchers, recreationists, international travelers and so many others go to enjoy the scenic beauty, historical meaning and cultural diversity of our national heritage.

"Assault weapons have no place in the National Park System unless they are in a museum. We applaud and support Senator Feinstein’s effort to make our national parks safer for all visitors and wildlife.”

Comments

A lot of points Lee - I will try to address them in order:

1) You don't want to disarm law abiding citizens. Maybe YOU don't, but there are many people that do and this is merely the first step. Like was stated earlier, 10 years of a ban wasn't enough to determine if it worked therefore try 20-40. I fear that after banning "assault" weapons with no effect the next step will be to ban more weapons until ultimately the law abiding citizen is disarmed.

2) Serious problems - yes but I don't see them as necessarily with guns. Family structure, entitlement mentality, psychotic drugs, ethnic diversity, drugs, gangs, video games and violent movies are more likely the cause of our high gun violence vs other countries. Heck, everyone in Switzerland had an "assault rifle" but their violent crime is nowhere near ours, while England and Australia have no guns and they rank 1 & 2 in violent crime.

Background checks- I have no problem with that if they are handled as they are in CO. After the check is done, all records are destroyed.

No on tracking. Sport shooters easily can go through 6 thousand rounds. No mass shooting has involved more than a few hundred rounds. Are we going to interrogate anyone that buys 200 rounds of ammo?

3)I don't necessarily disagree on the mental health - that clearly is an issue as nearly all the mass shooters have had mental health issues. Most are on psychotic drugs or recently came off. Currently you can't pass a background check if you are a marijuana or other drug user. I would not vehemently object to those on psychotic drugs going on a no buy list although the privacy issue is a little troubling

4)So someone with a traffic violation shouldn't own a gun? Maybe the answer here is to change misdemeanor charges that indicate someone is prone to violence, to felony charges.

5)Restrictions for restrictions sake? Worthless and unconstitutional. Demonstrate the restrictions will have benefits that outweigh the consequences - and are Constitutional and I will be glad to listen.

6)Nice examples but you have no idea whether those that shot at your plane or those on your Scouting outing had training or not. Again, demonstrate that would address a real issue (i.e. higher levels of danger from those without training than with), and I would be willing to listen. BTW - interesting you have been hit twice and I have never heard that happening to anyone else.

7) Your definition of "sensible" is that they agree with you. 53% of Americans approve of the NRA - you stated the nation is "mostly sensible people" but for some reason your don't respect their "sense".


And for David Crowl, the term "regulated" at the time referred to training and organization, not to controlling what arms were held by the people. There isn't a single known comment from a founding father indicating they wanted to control what kind of weapons could be owned. In contrast, there are many citations available showing that they wanted the "militia" to be on par with the capabilities of any standing army - foreign or domestic.


Re: Imtnbike. I read the Harris piece. It's excellent. The writer does a fine job of putting some logic into this issue.

I must say, some of you people confuse me.... Mr Mamet, as you say, isn't as liberal as he was. I don't know how 'right wing' he might be, but it doesn't matter to me. Just like it didn't matter to me when he was a 'liberal' playwright. His work was magnificent.

You on the other hand, dismiss him out of hand, to the point that he might be an idiot, because he ain't where he used to be politically...30 seconds to skim his piece? Please.

I never expected the majority of liberal commentors here to read Mamet's piece. I hoped one or two would. They would benefit.

I expect that many might read the Harris piece because it's proposed by someone who thinks 'right-wingers might be idiots'. I'm ok with that because if they take the time to actually read Harris, they'll learn a lot that will make them think....you've done us all a service. Thank you. Kurt, thank you for letting this run. It seems to be a little more civil than the last one, with more valid comments by all. Even though we aren't really talking about parks...


The Harris piece cited above by imtnbke makes many excellent points - it's worth reading.

I definitely agree with his comments on the need for more stringent vetting - and training - of individuals receiving permits for handguns. At present, such vetting and training is either a sham, or non-existent, in too many situations and states.

If groups such as the NRA would put their muscle behind both of those steps, I believe at least some of the current opposition to the carrying of handguns by private citizens would be defused.


Hi, MikeG —

I would respectfully reply that you're painting me with too broad a brush. There are in fact thoughtful people on the left (Andrew Sullivan, e.g.), the right (Ron Unz, e.g.), and the hard-to-characterize (the late Christopher Hitchens). One of the best qualities among them is that they are open-minded and not locked in an ideological jail of their own making, as most people are.

I would have to say that Mamet doesn't fit in that group, from what I've seen. His speech to the Manhattan Institute was hotheaded and overblown. Maybe he was that way in his liberal guise too; I don't know. I would never say, however, that Mamet or anyone else is an idiot because he moved to the right, only that his speech could come across as idiotic.

I watched Mamet's address for at least 30 minutes on C-SPAN, lest anyone think I wrote him off after skimming his gun control article for 30 seconds, which your post could imply unless someone is reading it very carefully.

I realize this is drifting far off the topic and will try not to keep replying on these tangential points.


The NRA approval rating has slipped...no longer 53%

http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-approval-ratings-press-conference-gun...


Well thats interesting David. What has changed since the end of December? Not the NRA or any of its positions. Could the change possibly be related to the media's vilification and the uninformed sheeple are following along? lets see what the next Gallop poll says.


I also sent an email to Flying Magazine. (Sorry, forgot that in my list above.) This reply just arrived. I'll have to tag on to the enewsletter this afternoon and see what it says. In the meantime, here is this morning's reply from someone on the editorial staff there:

Hi Lee,

Glad to hear you survived those incidents unharmed. We actually have a story about this coming out in our enewsletter this afternoon. Keep a lookout!

Best wishes,
Bethany Whitfield


The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.