May 21st, 2009
04:00 PM ET

Should concealed and loaded guns be allowed in national parks?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It looks like gun rights advocates are about to score a win with a Democrat in the White House. The House and Senate have now both approved bills that would allow concealed and loaded guns into national parks and wildlife refuges - unless a state law doesn't allow them.

Yosemite National Park in California.

The measure has been attached to the credit card bill, which is a top priority for President Obama, and could become law this week. The bill passed with the help of moderate Democrats, many of them from the South and Midwest. One of the bill's supporters, Republican Senator Tom Coburn, says the move isn't a "gotcha amendment," but a real step to protect the Second Amendment.

Gun rights groups say the bill will give gun owners the same rights on national park land that they have everywhere else; but they say they don't want to declare victory until it becomes law.

Meanwhile groups like the Fraternal Order of Police and the Association of National Park Rangers say the bill would increase the risk of poaching and vandalism of park treasures, as well as threats to visitors and staff.

Some Democrats are disappointed in what they see as the success of the gun lobby under a Democratic president and Congress. But aides admit that many Democrats feel pressure to back gun legislation or face political heat from the National Rifle Association. Can you tell there's a mid-term election around the corner?

Here’s my question to you: Should concealed and loaded guns be allowed in national parks?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Kathy writes:
What the hell is the matter with people’s heads that this is even at issue? Why would a concealed weapon be needed anywhere, much less in a park? Where my kids may be hiking? Common sense... not so common anymore, is it?

Tom from Dubuque, Iowa writes:
Why, is al Qaeda recruiting grizzly bears? Just what the park rangers need – people with concealed guns running around our parks.

Tori writes:
I don't believe allowing concealed weapons on federal property would increase the risk of criminal activity. People predisposed to do those acts don't care if it's legal to carry a concealed weapon. The people who carry concealed weapons legally are less likely to act illegally.

Clay writes:
Absolutely not. If these people who carry guns are so afraid to go into our national parks without firearms then they should just stay at home. Our parks are supposed to be places of refuge for both humans and animals. And what will be the NRA's excuse when the first person is killed in a national park by a stray bullet fired by some drunk idiot with a firearm? That's the cost of maintaining our freedom? Give me a break.

Melissa writes:
Hell, yes. People who are legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon should be able to have their gun with them at all times except where they are prohibited… The lawmakers in Washington need to punish the people that break the law, not those of us who play by the rules.

Tina writes:
No. Our animals are on the endangered list now. Just wait till some Johnny shoot-first, ask-questions-later arrives in the woods armed to the hilt and comes across a bear. The bear will be dead. Only the park ranger should be armed.

Will writes:
Concealed and loaded amendments shouldn't be allowed in completely unrelated bills.

Filed under: Government • Law Enforcement
soundoff (299 Responses)
  1. Kevin in Dallas, TX

    I think we're at a point where we can try legalizing it again. If poaching becomes a problem, just outlaw it again.

    May 21, 2009 at 12:36 pm |
  2. Kevin

    Given the lifelong affair with weapons Americans seem to have – a constitutional Amendment passed to prevent a possible invasion by Britain, somewhat unlikely nowadays, don't you think?-, separating some people from their guns is harder than separating them from their own mother. Never seen someone suing their gun, yet many sue their mother nowadays, for example. Parks in which illegal drugs are grown on occasion, places where protected yet dangerous animals lurk as well, look like an environment where the law of the jungle might seem appealing to many. Now, if concealed loaded guns are allowed in parks, maybe Robocops could be send patrolling them instead of wardens. That would create manufacturing jobs in hight-tech hubs and perhaps stave-off California's bankruptcy, serve as a great training ground for SWAT teams and allow cheap westerns to be produced, which in turn might damage cinema studios' revenues. Go figure, that might precipitate the bankruptcy instead.

    May 21, 2009 at 12:42 pm |
  3. A. Davis

    It just shows the kind of wimps who belong to the NRA–do they need a concealed weapon to protect them from ground squirrels and chipmunks? I just hope one of those freaks doesn't open up on unsuspecting tourists in a national park. Shame on the dems for allowing it to be attached to legitimate credit card legislation.

    May 21, 2009 at 12:50 pm |
  4. Paul Pettipas

    Whats next...elementary schools and churches? Of course there shouldn't be! Why? Whats the mortal danger thats present? Police and Military officers take extensive training to learn how to use weapons responsibly, and even they cannot get it right sometimes. How do we expect every Tom, Dick and Jane on the street to be able to use one?

    May 21, 2009 at 12:57 pm |
  5. Simpliticus

    It seems to me that the issue of carrying concealed guns into national parks is a disaster waiting to happen. The claims that people must be protected against wildlife is patently absurd, assuming that reasonable people will have taken the safest matters of concern into consideration when going into national parks in the first place! I have heard issues of being confronted by bears and rattlesnakes, for example, as excuses for carrying guns in the first place and these things seem on the whole to be goofy reasons to espouse the use of guns. If one stumbles upon a bear or a rattlesnake, one probably has not heeded park rangers' admonitions of staying in safe locations in the first place. Western towns did not relinquish the carrying of guns for no reasons at all and national parks should not have them at all. Could it be that the most dangerous places in America would be its freeways and its national parks because guns were allowed to be used one way or another, either , in a road-rage matter on that freeway or a road-rage matter in a national park, simply because guns were available to be used!

    May 21, 2009 at 1:02 pm |
  6. David in San Diego

    Yes, once they have been modified so the ursine residents can fire them safely. I think the "right to bear arms" means, through the plain-text-meaning approach to Constitutional interpretation, that bears have the right to be armed everywhere, including in the National Parks.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:06 pm |
  7. David Gerstenfeld

    No! Next question?

    May 21, 2009 at 1:08 pm |
  8. NE Rose

    Absoloutlynot! We need laws to get rid of more of the guns that are around now. WE NEED TO STOP THE VIOLENCE! In other words , no one needs a gun except for law enforment personnel.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:09 pm |
  9. Mareike Kuypers

    los angeles
    No!! I can't think of any reason someone needs to have a concealed, loaded gun with them as they travel through a national park. A loaded gun is a "loaded gun."

    May 21, 2009 at 1:10 pm |
  10. Rick Medina,OH


    I don't like guns. I've never owned one, and have no plans to change that. I understand that the Second Amendment is fairly well-settled, but society has the right to expect gun owners to be free of a criminal record, sane, and reasonably trained in the use of their purchases. I question the sanity of anyone who feels the need to take a concealed and loaded weapon on vacation in a national park.

    Rick, OH

    May 21, 2009 at 1:12 pm |
  11. Per-Ola

    Short answer: Absolutely Not!!!!

    The National Parks are a treasured resource that should be free from as much of what we can drag in from the "modern world" as possible. Gun have no place in the parks, parks that are to be serene, prisitine places.

    And since many can't be trusted with what the parks offer, more gun will lead to random shootings, poaching, targhert practice, lead pollution, etc, etc. No guns in the parks please!!!!

    BTW, if folks need a gun because they feel threatened, it is likely to to their bad attitudes towards others, and better would be to change that attitude.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:13 pm |
  12. Marie Ontario

    Absolutely jack every animal whether deer, elk bear or cougar should not only be armed with guns they should be taught to shoot and licenced to kill if only in self defence.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:14 pm |
  13. walter collins

    I would say no, however I have family members who probably would not be alive today if they didn't. Apparently I will always overthink this query, knowing my needs and interpretations differ from most (including my family).

    May 21, 2009 at 1:15 pm |
  14. Susan

    NO; if we allow that, where do we go to feel free, relaxed, at one with nature if we have to wonder if the person we pass on the trail thinks we looked at him the wrong way and decides to shoot us. We go out to nature to get away from all the craziness, not confront it.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:15 pm |
  15. Alex in Wisconsin

    Guns aren't needed in national parks unless you are defending yourself from a person...with a gun. I wouldn't mind so much if this bill had been voted for on it's own, not stuck into important legislation. But in the end, this just means I won't be camping in any national parks. With the rise of hate groups,many who coincidentally like to carry assault rifles around, I just wouldn't feel safe in the woods.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:19 pm |
  16. Jayne

    Guns in parks, guns in colleges, guns everywhere. And we're shocked every time there's a mass killing. No. Concealed weapons should not be allowed in our national parks.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:19 pm |
  17. Don Benson

    I struggled with how to reply to this nonsense...Unless you are an undercover law enforcement officer...No One should be permitted to carry a concealed weapon-anywhere. As for the National Parks... PEOPLE should not be allowed in-period...never mind if they are carrying a weapon or not....First there was the snowmobile debate, then off road 4 wheelers, now guns...We should just build a fence around the parks and let the wildlife be free from all the lunacy.

    Don Benson
    Bedminster, PA

    May 21, 2009 at 1:20 pm |
  18. Ann C from Nashville

    Absolutely not...these are family vacation destinations and not firign ranges. Besides, what if the ex-President DICK Cheney is there he always carries a big gun and has been known to shoot innocent people. Help us all from him!

    May 21, 2009 at 1:21 pm |
  19. Alex in Wisconsin

    I believe that it is completely unnecessary. I hope that the government would be smart and at least make the people bringing a loaded weapon into a national park register their weapon first. Otherwise, this move is as stupid as letting a person bring a loaded gun into federal building, banks and schools.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:22 pm |
  20. David of Alexandria VA

    Oh sure. In parks like Yellowstone, campers and hikers can face mortal danger from bears and other predators. Also, in those parks where hunting is legal, I would imagine a gun would come in handy.

    I'm not sure carrying a piece on the national mall, however, would make much sense - it would be like arming the bears.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:23 pm |
  21. Denny from Tacoma, WA

    Yes they should as long as the gun person has a permit to do so. In all of their beauty, most national parks may still have wildlife that can be potentially dangerous to man and man does have a right to protect himself.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:24 pm |
  22. Tom in Desoto, Tx

    Sure weapons should be allowed in National Parks, as long as the person has a license for it and needs it to put food on the table tonight. Perhaps bear, deer, elk, buffalo with a nice spinach souffle and something in the rattlesnake line for dessert

    May 21, 2009 at 1:24 pm |
  23. David in Georgia


    I've never understood how the constituion applies in some places but not others.

    The only question I can see is that of consealment. Not knowing who is armed and who isn't is potentually scary. Contrary to the NRA I believe in open carry. Anyone who chooses to arm themselves should not be allowed to hide their choice.

    PS, I have a CC permit but seldom carry becuase the gun is heavy bulky and uncomfortable.


    May 21, 2009 at 1:26 pm |
  24. Jenna

    Should concealed and loaded guns be allowed in national parks?

    Why not. It's not like a ranger is going to save me from a nutcase or raging animal attack.

    You can't bring them without proof of license though.

    Roseville CA

    May 21, 2009 at 1:32 pm |
  25. Tom in Dubuque Iowa

    Why, is Al Qaeda recruiting Grizzlie bears? Just what the park rangers need; people with concealed guns running around our parks. Try stopping a rampaging bear with a 9mm, and see what happens.
    Oh and by the way; I am a long time hand gun owner and competitive shooter.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:33 pm |
  26. Rebecca in SC

    Absolutely not. It appalls me that our congress people are so afraid of the gun lobby that they are willing to tell the American people that our parks are preserves for gun-lovers and that they (ordinary American families) enter them at their own risk. If this provision is not removed from the bill in conference, I expect that the number of visitors in national parks will drop precipitously.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:35 pm |
  27. Tina Tx

    No. Our animals are on the endangered list now just wait till some Johnny Shoot First ask questions later arrives in the woods armed to the hilt and comes across a bear. The bear will be dead. Only the park ranger should be armed. Gee we are becoming the wild, wild west once again when Americans were hell bent of getting rid of everyone and anything who stood in their way of progress.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:35 pm |
  28. kevin

    With all the rapes, robbery and murders in those parks you would be a fool not to be armed. Watch all these stats come down now

    May 21, 2009 at 1:36 pm |
  29. John Webster, Aldergrove BC Canada

    Since the constitution guarantees the right to arm bears, why shouldn’t the happy campers be allowed to bring their 44 magnums along when communing with nature? This would only legalize a current practice and add to the sound of music when out and about.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:38 pm |
  30. Mark, Bradenton, FL

    Sure more guns that is all we need. Why do we have the highest rate of death by guns?

    May 21, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
  31. Conor in Chicago

    If you need a gun to feel safe in a national park then one of 4 things needs to happen:

    1)The army needs to be sent in so it can clear whatever criminal, insurgent, or otherwise hostile element exists there

    2) You need to see a psychiatrist as you are frighteningly paranoid

    3)Biologists need to be sent in to study whatever monstrous animals are requiring citizens to arm themselves

    4)You need to reread the 2nd Amendment and take notice of the “well organized militia” part-and then join a militia.

    I’m all for an armed citizenry-I really am. But this is a little much.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:46 pm |
  32. Tom, Santa Barbara CA

    How on earth is this a good idea? The people who would want to bring concealed weapons to National Parks are the last people you would want in National Parks in the first place. We don't need to turn these places into "Survivalist Camps."

    May 21, 2009 at 1:47 pm |
  33. Charlie in Belen, New Mexico

    Devisive question. It would depend upon circimstances. If I have the proper state permits and I am on a highway passing through the park, then perhaps, yes. If I am on a hiking or bus tour in the park then probably not. I can not think of anything that would be of any use against an annoyed grizzily bear or buffalo that could be "concealed". But then I flatter myself to think that I am intelligent enough to avoid giving offense to said native park dwellers. (There was one large rattlesnake that was polite enough to warn me off and I did heed it's warning with no damage to either of us..... )

    May 21, 2009 at 1:49 pm |
  34. Mark in OKC

    Absolutely Yes, I never know when I might run into that would-be terrorist in the woods.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:51 pm |
  35. Will from San Jose

    Concealed and loaded amendments shouldn't be allowed in completely unrelated bills.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:53 pm |
  36. Brian

    Sure! we should also remove the ban on carrying them in the House and Senate Chambers, the White House, elementary and secondary schools and the county court house. What fun it would be for some crazy to carry a streetsweeper into Independence National Historical Park
    -oh, wait, that IS a national park.
    We mustn't forget stockholder meetings either; as the season opens (quaint, that), I expect to hear of all sorts of new "security rules" to protect executives from their employers.
    !Guns everywhere!

    May 21, 2009 at 1:54 pm |
  37. Adam Thousand Oaks, CA

    National Parks should not be treated any differently than anywhere else. I do not recall where the Second Amendment restricted the use of guns in any parks.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:54 pm |
  38. Don (Ontario)

    No! This is not the wild west even though there are those out there that would like to return to that era. If this ludicrous idea is implemented, who whould be foolish enough to go to a National Park with their family. An argument over a camp site could end up in someone getting shot. This love affair with guns is about as stupid as driving a motorcyle without a helmit. Sooner or later somebody gets killed.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:57 pm |
  39. odessa

    no! why is everybody so gun crazy all of the sudden?..i don't that it won't become an issue for the midterm but why are some democrats acting like wussies to stand up for what they believe in and caving in to old GOP's tactics.i hope that they think about consequences letting guns into national parks while millions of guns are sold in united states as well being traded in mexico.it should have serious background checks and excluded mental folks for having guns too.no more loopholes shouldn't be included either;damages are already to done for hurting our country.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:58 pm |
  40. Katiec Pekin, IL

    This is ridiculous, Jack. To tack this onto an important bill concerning credit cards is about as low as you can get.
    There is absolutely no acceptable reason for firearms to be allowed
    in state parks, etc. What was their reasoning and justification behind
    it?? Certainly not anything worthwhile.
    The NRA is as extremist as some of the terrorists groups.It is scary
    to realize they have so much power in this country to get something
    so dangerous and irresponsible passed.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:58 pm |
  41. Remo .............. Austin, Texas

    I've backpacked into some remote areas of our parks. I can tell you that at times I wish I had a way to defend myself for the critters out there looking at you like a quick dinner.

    Now to have a concealed firearm I looked at the requirements in Texas. You have to pass a background check local and national. Have your finger prints taken that run through a national database. Take a course. Show proficiency in safely handling a firearm as well as proficiency in using it. Understand and know the laws. Understand and know the liability that you have if you use the firearm. Pass a written exam.

    Now looking at the Texas Department of Public Safety website there are 314,000 license holders and 1,500 instructors. The state has 23 million in population. Now looking at these numbers you can see right away that the chance of a licensed individual is miniscule in a national park in Texas. In looking at the same data base you can see that very few have infractions.

    The way the numbers add up, I really don't see the shoot em up scenerio that's being played out. If all the other 49 states have similar numbers then this is really much a do about nothing. Mind you to have a concealed firearm, you muct have a license.

    I would think that the folks who go through the requirements, the courses, the renewal courses, to keep current wouldn't be the ones to take lightly the responsibility that they have.

    Am I pro anything, NO, I just thought I'd have a look see at the data out there before I had some politician, or interest group, spewing partial information or inaccurate data

    May 21, 2009 at 1:58 pm |
  42. wickedcats

    This is one of the worst bonehead ideas I've heard, EVER! It's a danger to people and animals in the parks.

    May 21, 2009 at 1:59 pm |
  43. Freedom4All

    You have a better chance of being hit by lightning in a National Park than being the victim of a violent crime. Our Congress should be ashamed, and that includes the spineless Democrats who sold out their constituents to the NRA. This is another pathetic step toward a national gun policy that sacrifices the freedom of the general public for the paranoid desires of a vocal minority.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:00 pm |
  44. catharine gilliam

    Allowing people to carry guns in national parks is outrageous. Parks are the places that America has wisely set aside for reflection, reverence and tranquility. The vast majority of people who seek to enjoy nature would not want to bring a gun – but it would only take a few belligerent, tense, hostile folks who want to carry their guns to destroy the safe, idyllic expereince that national parks have always provided.

    I used to really enjoy hiking – sometimes alone – in our national parks. I often encounter bears and have learned that there is nothing to be afraid of from black bears in the east if you behave with common sense. I will never feel that way about seeing someone coming down the trail with a loaded gun. If this rule stands, it will ruin one of my favorite pasttimes. Destroying our American national park expereince is unpatriotic – shame on the NRA.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:01 pm |
  45. Jonno

    City, State: Carpinteria, CA
    People do not leave their problems at the entrance gate and I've seen some very ugly domestic disturbances in campgrounds. Add a loaded weapon to folks who have been drinking and arguing, and it's not going to be very safe for anyone nearby.

    So now that there's the right to bare arms, can we arm bears?

    May 21, 2009 at 2:01 pm |
  46. Cathy

    NO – loaded weapons should not be allowed in National Parks.
    BLM and US Forest Service allow hunting. Most NPS sites do NOT allow hunting. Since the gun lobbiest wanted to allign gun laws, does this mean they want to allow hunting in our National Treasures? It makes just as much sence as their reasons. Might as well allow guns in schools and workplaces also. Another win for the domestic terrorist.
    writing from Nevada

    May 21, 2009 at 2:02 pm |
  47. Pablo in Tejas

    Oh absolutely, Jack. Nothing says vacation like whipping out the old Nine Mil and popping a few rounds at whatever is making that noise outside your tent. What could possibly go wrong?

    Arlington Texas

    May 21, 2009 at 2:05 pm |
  48. Ed Reed

    Well of course! And also churches, schools, hospitals, day care centers, bars and Congress. What could possibly go wrong?

    Ed Reed

    May 21, 2009 at 2:05 pm |
  49. Lisa in Ga.

    No Jack, this is unacceptable. The craze over guns and the banning of guns have gotten out of control. I am afraid b/c most of the people that visit these parks are children and tourists. This would give gun holders the right to kill someone and say ooops this was mistake.... there is enough craziness going on with the rise in gun sales and ammunition.... this is just giving the gun crazy people a shorter mile to run!

    May 21, 2009 at 2:06 pm |
  50. Michael and Diane Phoenix AZ

    Sure, just don't allow any people to carry them! It isn't the guns that worry me, it's the people that carry them. What is the old saying? "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." All the firearm safety and classes won't make a difference if the person doesn't know right from wrong to begin with.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:07 pm |
  51. Anita from Tennessee

    No, if Congress wants to allow guns in our National Parks where the public goes and does not have the security afforded to Congress, then Congress should allow guns in the halls of Congress. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander!

    Congress really shows its intelligence at times!

    May 21, 2009 at 2:08 pm |
  52. Jamie Hart

    As a National Park Ranger, I do not believe guns should be allowed in National Parks. We are already concerned with the safety of wildlife and visitors, this could cause more problems than it could solve. I believe it is a person's right to carry a gun, but a National Park is no place for guns, unless they are kept secure, unloaded and out of reach. I work in a place where there are protected Grizzly Bears. I can't imagine what it could mean if a visitor were able to carry a gun into the back-country and perhaps use it in the "name of self defense" to kill an innocent bear.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:09 pm |
  53. Chris from PA

    No. If you can't hunt there, why would you need a gun. I find it hard to believe that anyone in their right mind would feel the need to carry a gun in a national park to protect their life. Bit of overkill I think.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:09 pm |
  54. Kevin ,Fl

    Jack, back in the Good Ol' Days , before Calif became the most Anti Gun State in the Union, I used to hunt in a National Forest near Pine Valley. It Was Legal during deer season . There were no real poachers to speak of, nor were there any murdered campers. Thats the kind of nonsense the Anti Gunners love to spread to frighten people. Criminals will always prey upon people , its a sad fact of life, but to disarm the Law Abiding Citizen is a disgrace.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:10 pm |
  55. Lisa

    No. This yet another stupid decision by NRA gun lovers to push their "rights" on the rest of the US with NO concern for the consequences. These people are oblivious to the damage they cause in resisiting reasonable restrictions, for the sake of their indevidual satisfaction.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:11 pm |
  56. Carl from Houston, TX

    Of course!! As a licensed Concealed Carry Holder I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to carry in a National Park.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:12 pm |
  57. Jim Thomson

    No, they should not. For two reasons.

    1) Before the new law, rangers had a simple, pragmatic way to prevent poaching. If they found someone in the back country, illegally carrying a hunting rifle, they wouldn't arrest them, they would confiscate their rifle. Now that they can't confiscate their guns, they're going to have to lock poachers up, and it's going to hurt the local communities around the parks when their breadwinners start getting sent away to federal prison.

    2) The most common complain law-enforcement rangers have to deal with is domestic disputes in the campgrounds. Would anyone be safer if these visitors were armed?

    And maybe we should add 2.5) I grew up in Alaska myself, and I feel comfortable around guns, but many Americans don't. People go to national parks to relax with their families. A lot of folks would feel uneasy seeing other visitors carrying guns. It alters the character of the experience, and not for the better.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:13 pm |
  58. Harold from Anchorage,AK

    I would not consider using any concealable handgun to hunt or poach any game animal. I would use it as a weapon of last resort to try to prevent death/dimemberment from an irate bear if altenatives fail.
    I think anyone who travels in bear country(almost anywhere in AK) without a firearm is stupid.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
  59. Annie, Atlanta

    Is this a great country or what? I can see it now. 4 guys camping in Yellowstone, sitting around the campfire guzzling beer. About 1 a.m. it's time for target practice. What's a few injured or mortally wounded buffalo? What's next, college campuses or maybe high schools? To hell with "we the people," it's all about winning elections at any cost.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:17 pm |
  60. katherine haymes

    No I don"t thy re are too dangerous and that's how innocent people get killed.

    And there are children in those parks.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:18 pm |
  61. Paul S. Columbia, SC

    I disagree with the "concealed" part of the law. If any citizen has a lawful permit to carry a weapon; then it should be carried where it will be seen by both the good guys and the bad guys. Keeping a weapon secret is no deterrant to a potential crime. Futhermore, anyone who qualifies to carry a gun should also be automatically deputized which would require investigation into determining the proper use of a firearm.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:18 pm |
  62. Melissa

    Not if you don't want people to be shot. Most people are too stupid to use a gun responsibly. They will think they're being attacked by a bear when it was just a child in the bushes. Its stupid.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:21 pm |
  63. Dale Thompson

    I am a retired NPS Park Ranger and a strong believer in 2nd. ammendment rights. I wonder why is is necessary to "fix" something that's not broke? The current regulation (having unloaded guns/cased in parks) has worked for years. Now there will be more people on people crime and poaching in parks.

    Dale Thompson
    Vail, AZ

    May 21, 2009 at 2:22 pm |
  64. Dale Copps

    It is difficult to find a loophole in language so plain and simple as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "Bear" means "move while holding up or supporting, and "infringed" means "to encroach upon a right or a privilege."

    On its face, this amendment would seem to be in accord with the Second Amendment. However, the often-too-succinct Constitution requires interpretation, which is why we have a Supreme Court in the first place. We have already interpreted the Second Amendment to the extent that some exceptions to this right have been canonized into law. Students, though they be people, may not bear arms to the protected, geographically limited environment of their school, for instance (see U.S. v. Lopez).

    I would argue that it is a similarly legitimate exercise of Constitutional interpretation to disallow people the right to bear loaded assault rifles within the protected, geographically limited environment of national parks. Leaving it to the states to decide the issue is a woeful abrogation of federal responsibility. They are called, after all, national parks.

    We should also challenge allowing impertinent amendments such as this to be tacked on to utterly unrelated legislation.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:23 pm |
  65. Robert E. Stinson

    Sadly, common sense has been thrown out with the National Rifle Association disingenuously henpecking Congress to promote the "2nd Amendment Rights" mantra rathering than seeing it for what it is... National Parks are a sanctuary and there is not a single valid reason for people to be carrying weapons into parks.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:24 pm |
  66. Don Armand

    Our National parks are home to a different kind of predator than are the cities, but predators they are. I think most hikers and campers are not looking to go on a shooting spree but would like to be able to have some defense againt bears and mountain lions beyond a good pair of running shoes.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:26 pm |
  67. Ed from Southwest Colorado

    Guns should not be allowed in our National Parks. For what reason should they be allowed other than the NRA lobbying for guns in every place at any time. And the spineless Dems caved in. When will the Dems ever get a spine? That is the big question.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:27 pm |
  68. Paul Ollig, Montana

    There is absolutely no reason why anyone needs to carry a loaded weapon into a national park or wildlife refuge. Not only does the existing ban NOT infringe upon someone's 2nd Amendment rights (you can still carry a gun into a national park as long as it is unloaded and secured where it is not immediately accessible), by allowing this bill to become law Congress is virtually ensuring that the National Park Service will be fundamentally unable to fulfill its mission of protecting and preserving our nation's natural and cultural resources UNIMPAIRED for future generations.

    As for the uninformed individuals who want their gun as a "security blanket" for protection against bears, I will add that guns are completely ineffective at preventing or stopping bear attacks. In most cases, actually, using a gun will make a bear attack worse. The ONLY effective way to prevent a bear attack is to 1. make noise and travel in groups, 2. store your food properly, 3. never run from a bear, and 4. carry and know how to properly use bear spray.

    Allowing guns in national parks is one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
  69. Peter Kelton

    Only if the bears are allowed to carry guns too.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:29 pm |
  70. Bryan Faehner

    Jack, I am a former park ranger and work for the National Parks Conservation Association, which has been leading efforts to fight the Coburn Amendment. You should know that Coburn's provision isn't limited to concealed carry weapons, but would allow shotguns, assault rifles, and semi-automatic guns in our parks unless that state forbids it. Just two years ago, about 300 campers at Sequoia National Park were startled awake during the middle night by a guy who fired 9 seperate shots at a black bear from various locations in a campground. It is a miracle he didn't kill someone. Historians from our country and others have said that "America's national parks are the best idea we ever had." Sadly, allowing loaded shotguns in parks is the "worst idea our Congress has ever had."

    Bryan Faehner, Washington DC

    May 21, 2009 at 2:31 pm |
  71. Tim in Texas

    Colburn says this isn't a 'gotcha ammendment' ? Really? Then why is it attached to a credit card bill? It also has nothing to do with the second ammendment, which people should go back and read carefully. It begins with the words, "A well regulated militia being necessary for the sanctity of a free state... ". In what way are people carrying concealed handguns a "well regulated militia" and in what sense has the "sancity of a free state" been threatened in a National Park?
    Tim in Texas

    May 21, 2009 at 2:32 pm |
  72. Bizz, Quarryville, Pennsylvania

    Jack I am an avid hunter who never join the NRA for this very reason. I do not understand what they want? It appears to me they would like people to be able to walk down the street or wherever they are in the United States, and be fully armed to the teeth and ready to open up with any weapon of their choosing. I live here in Pennsylvania and the hunting laws allow me listen to hunt with certain types of rifles and shotguns that are not fully automatic, which I agree with. What I want is to have these kind of weapons available for me to buy to go hunting after passing a weapons check. I have seen what a high powered rifle and do to the body. We do not need people walking around with them in our national Parks where you have families with children visiting. The NRA is such a powerful organization that can demand and get anything they want for fear of reprisal. I would like to see them demand a good Healthcare System because we will need it if people are walking around with guns strapped to their body.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:33 pm |
  73. Jack - Lancaster, OH


    First, the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms by citizens. We are citizens both inside and outside the parks, be they national or not. No where in the amendment does it qualify locations as to state parks, national parks, or any location within the United States that a citizen has access to and is the domain of the public.

    Second, a loaded gun is the only way the machinery is useful for protection from enemies both within, and marauding invaders into the United States. It would be illogical to "allow" an unloaded gun anywhere, but I can see some legislator dreaming about that at as an accomplishment while ignoring the caveat "that this amendment shall not be infringed" !

    May 21, 2009 at 2:33 pm |
  74. Eddie in NC.

    No-– there are to many gun nuts in this country already. Why would i be ok taking my family to a park own by the people only to find an idiot with a beer in one hand, a gun in the other and a second amendment attitude. That makes for a great weekend.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:33 pm |
  75. Ben in Maryland

    By all means. And lets go back to the good old days, when men carried loaded guns on their hips and settled arguments on main street, or on Pennsylvania Ave in front of the Conress building. And all those gun advocates should be able to watch and cheer. And to heck with civil discussions.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:34 pm |
  76. Shirley

    I can't believe the gun mungering representative from my home state found it necessary to make park visitors subject to the injustices that take place on the streets of his great state. Nothing like a loaded gun in the hands of beer drinking drug enduced park partiers to make wholesome families think twice about spending the weekend in a Naitonal Park. Most people go there to get away from stray bullets and a gathering of gangs. Where will loaded guns be found next? In the holster of the worshiper sitting next to you on a church pew. This is so out of control. Guns in the Grand Canyon and the Petrified Forrest. Today is a very sad day.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:34 pm |
  77. Dana Dickey

    I live in KY and it is required by law to take a concealed weapons class to carry one legally. Unless a state I travel into reciprocates with KY, my permit may not be legal in that state.

    If I want to hunt out of state, I legally submit for the license for the required time and wildlife I hunt. Do we currently allow hunting in National Parks? Are they not protected? Why, other than the threat of your life, would you need to carry a concealed weapon and/or a loaded gun into a National Park? Kill what? Protect from what?

    Obama should not sign this bill BECAUSE the amendment was added to an important initiative. Although I support the right to bear arms, I don't support sneaky tactics like this. If they want to get this done right, bring it out into the open.

    Lastly,....tell Dick Cheney to shut up and stay out of the news, he just looks desperate for attention. Who cares what he thinks anyway!

    May 21, 2009 at 2:35 pm |
  78. NANCY M.- Colorado

    It is unfortunate for us all that the NRA has such a hold on this country. They would have AK47's in every household. I wonder what their next move would be. Anarchy?

    May 21, 2009 at 2:37 pm |
  79. Elizabeth Meyers

    America's national parks are places for enjoying our country's supreme natural landscapes and learning about its diverse human history. They are places for quiet contemplation and spiritual renewal. There is no reason why a person would need to carry a loaded weapon in a national park. I believe concealed and loaded guns in national parks will increase incidences of wildlife poaching and illegal sport shooting, and they will endanger the American public and our national park rangers.

    Fort Collins, Colorado

    May 21, 2009 at 2:43 pm |
  80. Bill Wade

    I'm a former national park superintendent and my response to your question is: absolutely not! But part of my reasoning may be different than that of others. I'm disturbed at the trend to make our national parks just like everywhere else in this country. Some people push for more snowmobiles in national parks; or more off-highway vehicles or personal water craft. Or in this case, guns. National parks were intended to be different and special. Let's keep them that way.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:44 pm |
  81. Micahel Clarke

    I personally don't have a problem with carrying a concealed weapon in a national park, although I would prefer if we had a society where this was not worthy for consideration. This consideration leads us down a 'slippery slope'; why not allow guns in school, church, or any other public place? We need to create a society where we reduce the need to carry weapons in public places period. Start by advocating the reduction of weapons versus the increase of weapons.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:44 pm |
  82. William Joseph Miller, Los Angeles

    Los Angeles is a dangerous city because too many people carry concealed weapons. If I am going on a vacation, I want to go to a place that is safer than Los Angeles. Letting people carry concealed weapons in national parks makes national parks as dangerous as the mean streets of Los Angeles. (I should know I live in a dangerous neighborhood.)
    Allowing everyone to carry their WMD of their choice to our national parks is great for the media. This summer they will get to cover a new homicide mass murder every day. Yellowstone and Yosemite, instead of South-Central, will be the new killing fields. It's bad news for the wildlife. I know the folks who carry weapons into national park won't be able to resist gunning down a few bear or deer for target practice. Pretty soon, we'll need to close national parks as hazards to public health. Then Mother Nature can get a real reprieve from human beings.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:44 pm |
  83. John from Alabama

    Jack: Loaded weapons in national parks I hope Smokie the Bear hides real well. The second amendment allows citizen to have weapons, but the regulations surounding the owership and use should be a local matter. The key words are: regulations and ownership

    May 21, 2009 at 2:44 pm |
  84. Beverly Schlotterbeck

    I feel way more frightened by people who insist on their right to carry a loaded gun or guns into a national park than I ever would by the bears or snakes who reside there. Really, we won the West, we tamed the land. We don't need you guns.
    Annandale, Va.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:45 pm |
  85. Jay

    Absolutely, Jack. People have the right to defend themselves and their loved ones. After all, the deer and the chipmunks have been allowed to carry guns for years, haven't they? It's time we leveled the playing field.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:46 pm |
  86. Larry from Georgetown, Texas

    NO, no and no. If this isn't a gotcha amendment then why didn't he submit a bill on it's own to see if it would pass. Simple, because it wouldn't and he and the NRA knows it. This is one time that a line item veto would resolve this kind of backdoor politics. He must have gotten a big check from the gun people and this really doesn't have anything to do with the 2nd amendment.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:48 pm |
  87. Adam - Portland, OR

    I don't understand why anyone needs a loaded or concealed gun in a national park. When I visit the national parks, it is to enjoy the beautiful scenery and wild life. It just doesn't make sense that caring a concealed weapon will further enhance one's visit to these beautiful parks. I've visited these parks my entire life and never once needed a gun. Upon hearing about this bill, I was shocked that there are people lobbing for such a stupid cause. Can't we just agree that there are few places that guns should not be allowed?

    May 21, 2009 at 2:48 pm |
  88. Chad from Los Angeles, CA

    I had no idea they were not allowed. If someone is not afraid to try poaching, then I doubt a gun prohibition law is doing much to deter them from committing the serious crime of poaching.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:49 pm |
  89. Susan

    Should concealed and loaded guns be allowed in national parks?

    Absolutely Not!!!!! Unbelievable, that this could be attached to the Credit Card legislation. Something needs to be done about attaching totally unrelated legislation to very important legislative bills. This needs to be done asap......it would eliminate all of those "Pork" and "Lobby-Interested" add ons to legislative bills. It is time for Congress (Senate and House) to pass legislation that would put an immediate stop to all these unrelated add-ons now being attached to very important legislation. CONGRESS STOP THIS NOW. If not stopped.....I guess the next action would be for the citizens demanding......an amendment to the Constitution. This, for sure, should be an issue during all future elections.......until action is taken by Congress.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:49 pm |
  90. Terry from North Carolina

    No guns in national parks that will give all the loonies an excuse to run around shooting at everything that moves.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:50 pm |
  91. Gabriel from Hartford, CT

    Prohibiton only disarms law abiding citizens. I have concealed carry permits from Connecticut, Utah, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts (these cover about 40 states). The rationale behind this particular prohibition is outright moronic. Poaching is illegal and whoever is going to engage in the crime will do so regardless of the gun laws. When are people going to understand that complete prohibition or extremely strict regulation only hurts law abiding citizens such as myself.? The criminals don't apply for permits and will carry guns wherever, regardless of the law; that includes schools, federal buildings, etc. The proponents of prohibition are only disarming law abiding citizens who one day might save their lives! We have more serious issues to tend to. Lets spend our time and tax dollars in more worthwhile efforts.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:51 pm |
  92. Al, Lawrence KS

    Only if there is a "well regulated militia" meeting at the park.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:52 pm |
  93. Randy

    There is NO reason for this law. Concealed and loaded guns have no place in National Parks

    May 21, 2009 at 2:53 pm |
  94. Daniel Indiana

    No! This just goes to show how centrist, conservative the Democrats actually are. True liberals would have overturned this legislation, even if it meant losing the credit card laws. How vile that this bill was "slipped" into this legislation to pander a few votes. The credit card legislation needs revamping and it isn't law yet. It is appalling that the banks will have nine months to abuse credit card users before this law takes effect. Both acts need to be vetoed and rewritten. How soon before they allow guns in court rooms, the US Capitol or the White House?

    May 21, 2009 at 2:53 pm |
  95. Gordon in Albuquerque,NM

    I've gone camping for over fifty years and have always brought a weapon. Even when I am not hunting. Growing up in rural areas and living in Rockey Mountain states gun ownership is part of the culture and not intimidating. I know that people in urban areas have issues with fearing guns. But that fear is more related to teenage gangs in those circumstances and not the wildlife in rural areas. Since certain types of liberals have made the national parks a safe haven for wolves, bears, big cats and other predators, it is a good idea to keep a gun handy to deal with those creatures that view humans as a food source. If that's a problem for you, stay in a hotel and ride in the tour busses.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:54 pm |
  96. Amber - Austin, TX

    Not unless they start issuing hunting licenses at the entrance to the park.

    Whose lame brained idea is this one?

    May 21, 2009 at 2:56 pm |
  97. Derby from Atlanta, GA

    Eight deaths total from the swine flu and everybody panics. Eighty deaths per day from firearms and we loosen gun laws. Reason and logic have nothing to do with this legislation (enacted in a credit card bill) and the most depressing part of all is that none of this is surprising.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:57 pm |
  98. Nancy, Tennessee

    The only guns carried into National Parks now are on criminals or law enforcement. The law abiding citizen may as well have permission so they can pack heat too. Let's make it a fair and even playing field so that overnight campers can feel safer. Why let's even take Smokey the Bear's shovel and give him a gun, too.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:58 pm |
  99. Richard, in Kansas

    Jack ,were a nation of guns. They are part of our history and culture. No one is requiring you to carry a gun if you choose not to. Banning guns wouldn't keep them out of the hands of criminals (remember, our national parks are also full of mexican pot farms) or stop the occasional bear attack. Personally I would carry my gun gun wheather it was legal or not. I'd rather have it when I need it and explain my actions later than not have it and be unable to protect myself or my family.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:58 pm |
  100. Stacy from Leesburg, VA

    If someone wants to walk into a park to bear arms, I think we have the right to arm bears. You know Jack, just to keep it “fair and balanced”.

    May 21, 2009 at 2:59 pm |
  101. Tom Mytoocents Fort Lauderdale Florida

    Is it my imagination or do criminals always seem to show where guns are banned. Those guys in the funny pants and three cornered hats maybe saw this comming. I feel safer knowing that we all are armed rather than just the bad guys

    May 21, 2009 at 3:00 pm |
  102. David Bebeau,Springfield Missouri

    When I read that yesterday I was absolutely dumb founded.here we are in the violent mess of messes and the last place families can go
    and be and enjoy... we add guns to their day.That is so crazy I can not
    believe I am in the USA.Worse yet it was our do nothing congress that
    (like all things they do) tacked it onto another bill.I am just
    speechless that we are this stupid.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:01 pm |
  103. Robert Laine

    This is a "States Rights" issue. If a citizen who has met their home state requirements to and has been granted a "Concealed Carry Permit", believe that right should permit the citizen to carry the appropriate weapon within any National Park or other NPS facility located within his/her home state..

    May 21, 2009 at 3:02 pm |
  104. Ron - Baltimore, Maryland

    Why don't we just give everyone instead of a tax break, a loaded gun that should help decrease the unemployment rate. What are these leaders of ours thinking, how much money will the lobbyist continue to pay and why won't our President VETO these kinds of acts?

    May 21, 2009 at 3:03 pm |
  105. Ann from Hampton, New Jersey

    Definitely not. There is always a chance that some gun-happy person will want to have a trophy for their living and claim an animal was killed in self-defense. It is always easier to use your gun in case you may think an animal is in the area, when in reality, it is another individual.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:04 pm |
  106. J Atlanta

    Either a citizen has the right to bear arms or he/she does not. Where that citizen happens to be standing doesn't seem to be in that particular amendment.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:04 pm |
  107. Gigi

    It scares me to death. It seems the people that carry them are the type that shoot first and then ask questions. National Parks where families go...I thought we had rangers through out the park for security.
    I'd rather they had to leave them at the gate. If we can't take them on flights, whats the good reason for having them in parks.


    May 21, 2009 at 3:05 pm |
  108. J Atlanta

    In the big picture, doesn't make any difference. America is a locomotive on the move and it matters more that the tracks under it are the ones going in the right direction. Doesn't really matter who blows the whistle.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:06 pm |
  109. Howard M., Bolingbrook, IL

    Heck no! Unless you can hunt there. I don't know why we are so gun crazy in this country. I'm 60 years old and the only time I've ever touched a gun for was the two years, I was drafted into the military and not since.

    My life is none the worst without a gun.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:06 pm |
  110. Deborah, Waleska Georgia

    Absolutely not. These are places where we should be able to go to get away from gun carrying fanatics. Seems that the Police, who are trained and have seen it all should have a huge say in this since they will be the ones cleaning up the mess from these idiots. More guns in the average American's hand mean more violence....

    May 21, 2009 at 3:08 pm |
  111. Bruce McKeeman

    National Parks and Wildlife Refuges are sanctuaries to preserve and protect the significant natural and cultural resources of our country. As critical havens for wildlife, their protection from people unaccustomed to natural settings is paramount and visitors to the Parks and Refuges should be able to enjoy these areas. Having people with any weapon that a state allows will dramatically increase the potential for improper reaction to the sight or actions of wildlife. It also will increase the possibility of violence in campgrounds when disputes and arguments escalate with the ready access to weapons. These areas are federal areas and State law should not determine whether or not individuals can possess weapons. Statistics show that the Parks are some of the safest places in the country.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:09 pm |
  112. Mike Kelly

    People with ccw's like myself carry a firearm for personal protection. We are not criminals that rob, kill or harm people. We are good citizens.Guns are for protection. Anyone knows that when you fire a gun it can be heard a mile away, so who in there right mind is going to shoot a gun in a park unless it a life threatening situation. Nobody ever talks about all the people that have been murdered and raped in the parks across the country by criminals.These victims were defenseless. Citizens with ccw's should be able to carry anywhere in the country.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:11 pm |
  113. Lance Schumacher

    Jack, the answer is a resounding YES! The federal system is sworen to uphold the Constitution and that document guarantees the right to bear arms. The states should be forced to uphold the Constitution by the federal government and any laws restricting the carry of weapons by law abiding citizens should be repealed on that basis. With the economy getting progressively worse, more people are turning to personal violent crime to cope, because they know most victims don't carry weapons.
    Lance, Ridgecrest, Ca

    May 21, 2009 at 3:11 pm |
  114. Rachel Colo Spgs CO

    I just couldn't believe this got tacked onto the credit card bill. This is the kind of stuff that makes me hate politics. It just shows the hold the NRA has over our elected officials and it makes me sick.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:12 pm |
  115. John Mackey

    NO. Why on earth would any one want to have a loaded gun in a National Park. Better yet why have the people in Washington ketowed to the NRA. There is no sane reason to have a loaded gun in any park or wild life refurge. Where do these people cime up with this wild west mentality. We must be the laughing stock of the rest od the world

    May 21, 2009 at 3:15 pm |
  116. sara mccloud

    I am sad to see that when hiking in the parks I will have to worry that some other person may be more likely to have a gun.

    There are times of the year that I avoid the National Forests for that reason.

    If this truly is a land of opportunity then why can't there be a few places in this country where I can chose to go knowing that guns are less likely to be present.

    It is also extremely sad to know that our national treasures will be at greater risks from poachers and vandals.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:15 pm |
  117. John from Blandon, PA

    Mr. Cafferty, I'll use your words. Let's see:

    The experts (groups like the Fraternal Order of Police and the Association of National Park Rangers) "say the bill would increase the risk of poaching and vandalism of park treasures, as well as threats to visitors and staff."

    And the nutcases - oops, I mean, gun rights proponents (Republican Senator Tom Coburn, Gun rights groups) "say the bill will give gun owners the same rights on national park land that they have everywhere else."

    Easy decision - I think I'll side with the experts.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:15 pm |
  118. Dick

    Dear Jack,

    I'm sure my 3 & 6 year old grandkids will feel safer thinking that the person hiking on the same trail as they are might have an automatic weapon under his shirt.


    May 21, 2009 at 3:16 pm |
  119. N. Margaret Robinson

    I'm a Park Ranger with the National Park Service and just joined the NRA for the first time a couple weeks ago. I am absolutely in favor of allowing guns in the parks, but I am an extremely small minority among my co-workers.

    This follows the path of every gun law... criminals will ignore them, and only law abiding citizens will follow them and no one will be safer (and no one will be in more danger either.)

    People use the term gun control but what they mean is gun laws. Laws do not control guns effectively.

    If this law fails, you will see no change in the number of illegal guns in the parks. If it passes, I hope there will be an increase in legal guns that will allow citizens the right for self-defense no matter their location.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:16 pm |
  120. Rob Seidler

    I've been worried about Congress for some time now. Now I'm convinced that the Capital should be turned on edge and the contents of the House of Representatives and the Senate should be dumped into the Atlantic.

    What possible positive outcome can be expected from allowing loaded guns into national parks? Name one. I dare you. Name just one good thing that is going to result.

    That's all I can say without the use of expletives.

    Rob Seidler

    May 21, 2009 at 3:16 pm |
  121. Zed

    National Parks, amusement parks, national memorials, city parks, day care centers...thats not the point. Gun owners who follow the law are not the problem, the criminals that do not adhere to the law are. the problem. If you required all firearms to be turned in and there was 100% compliance with law abinding citizens, the criminals would still have stolen/illegal weapons. Only law abiding citizens follow the law, so give enforcement the big guns and let us go after the criminals!

    May 21, 2009 at 3:16 pm |
  122. Greg Cox

    Of course they should. The Second Amendment is a "right to bear arms" for protection and self-defense. Criminals are in every area and venue including parks of all kinds. Why should the right to bear arms be terminated at a park entrance?

    May 21, 2009 at 3:19 pm |
  123. Rob Seidler

    I've been worried about Congress for some time now. Now I'm convinced that the Capital should be turned on edge and the contents of the House of Representatives and the Senate should be dumped into the Atlantic.

    What possible positive outcome can be expected from allowing loaded guns into national parks? Name one. I dare you. Name just one good thing that is going to result.

    That's all I can say without the use of expletives.

    Rob Seidler
    Bishop, California

    May 21, 2009 at 3:19 pm |
  124. Tom, Jacksonville, FL

    No, Jack, modern loaded guns should not be allowed in our national parks. This is a stupid idea of the NRA's and of those idiot politicians who are in their pockets that this thing tacked to credit card legislation is an attempt to preserve the second amendment. In the days of our founding fathers, most of this land was the equivalent of what our national parks are today, unspoiled wilderness. Those founding fathers never imagined the kinds of development we've seen in weaponry. I suggest that we be true to their intent on our right to bear arms and do away with the niceties of 21st century life in our parks – such as paved roads, restaurants, facilities and the like – and instead issue every visitor a powder horn, a few lead balls, and an 18th century styled muscat. Perhaps then we could experience the wilderness the way our forefathers did.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:19 pm |
  125. David, Tampa, Fl

    Jack, I have no problem with people owning guns for hunting and to protection. But what lunacy? I no more trust easy access to a gun in the forest than in a home. I'm with the Rangers and police on this one. All we need are a bunch of highly charged up macho types that have been drinking or with a chip on their shoulder about something dumb to open fire and hurt or kill innocent people. Just another reason to question the sanity of our lawmakers and the gun nuts in the IRA, er NRA, Idiot Rifle Army.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:20 pm |
  126. JS

    Well, that convinces me that my family and I won't be going to any national parks in the future. I'm originally from England, we have gun control, deaths from guns there can be counted on one hand. The world cannot understand why, with the number of deaths from gun violence any christian would want a gun or why the churches do not preach gun control the way they preach pro life! Joan NC

    May 21, 2009 at 3:20 pm |
  127. erinmontague

    Absolutely not. That's going to cause even more trouble for park rangers.

    Northern CA

    May 21, 2009 at 3:20 pm |
  128. Karen, Nashville

    No. It's unfair to responsible gun owners, but there are way too many people who can't resist a moving target. Wildlife need protected spaces.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:25 pm |
  129. Chryssa

    Jack, I've been discussing this with a few friends recently. So far, none has been able to give me any reason at all why they'd need a loaded, concealed weapon in a park. All they say is "It's my right," then some rhetoric about the government minding its own business. I don't possibly see what good could come of this legislation.

    Boise, ID

    May 21, 2009 at 3:30 pm |
  130. pat in lexington

    Absolutely not!! Concealed and loaded guns should not be anywhere except in the hands of officers of the law.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:31 pm |
  131. Jeff in Glen Carbon IL

    NO! What reasona would someone have for wanting a concealed weapon in a State Park,? If everyone was checked upon entering and only hunters had guns, then why would we be afarid and need protection? Certainly a fellow hunter would not be someone to worry about, right?

    May 21, 2009 at 3:32 pm |
  132. John

    Obviously we don't need guns in a national park. We haven't had them before and everything was just fine.

    If our lawmakers had the courage to do their jobs without any regard for reelection, imagine how much better Congress would be.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:32 pm |
  133. Jim


    Give it a try. One of two things will happen. Either (1) nobody but crooks and muggers will ever get hurt, in which case everything will be fine, or (2) innocent people will be hurt or killed in which case the Democrats will have some political cover when they re-ban weapons in national parks. It's a shame that we're in a position where innocent lives may have to be sacrificed in order to prove a point, but that's the corner the NRA has backed us into.

    Reno, Nevada

    May 21, 2009 at 3:33 pm |
  134. Michael Sullivan from Lafayette, California

    Jack - There is no reason on earth that concealed and loaded guns be
    allowed in national parks - what would the gun-loving people do with them - protect themselves from feeding bears or law-enforcing park
    rangers? - what is this world coming to?

    May 21, 2009 at 3:34 pm |
  135. Jeff in E. Lyme, CT

    Per year there are 45+ thousand firearm deaths in the U.S. A higher rate than any other developed nation. Will someone please explain to me why we need so many guns? I know the real reason, the NRA and the lobbyists hired by the gun industry, just like the tobacco industry, which is allowed to legally murder over 400,000 per year value profit over human life. Funny, most of the supporters of gun & tobacco rights are the same people who oppose birth control & abortion. Will someone please explain to me why we are producing so many morons who believe this propaganda from and allow decisions to be made by these greed-driven murderers. The 2nd amendment CLEARLY states that our nation and our citizens have the right to bear arms within a militia to defend our Nation. This means our Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines & Coast Guard. Absolutely no civilian should be allowed to carry a concealed firearm.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:36 pm |
  136. Jerry A - Toronto, Ontario

    Are you kidding me, no, is there nothing left that sacred. Stop the madness already. What's next, elementary schools with firing ranges, get them while they're young will be the NRA's motto. How about a gun shop at your local hospital, you can get a bullet removed and your gun cleaned at the same time? If this passes there is no doubt that some yahoo will take a pot shot at an animal and end up killing a child.

    Is there any sanity left in these politicians?

    May 21, 2009 at 3:37 pm |
  137. Frank from Peterborough

    Guns in national parks isn't any more ridiculous than the bill currently in the Texas Senate to allow college students to carry concealed weapons.

    One thing about having everyone armed to the teeth it might cut down on law suits as the manly thing to do is if people have a disagreement just shoot out like they did at the O.K. Corral.

    I can't wait to hear the next news story where Texas student's get drunk and go on a shooting spree. At least it gives media something to talk about.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:37 pm |
  138. Tori

    I don't believe allowing concealed weapons on Federal property would increase the risk of criminal activity. People predisposed to do those acts don't care if it's legal to carry a concealed weapon. The people who carry concealed weapons LEGALLY, are less likely to act illegally. It might even save them from a bear attack!

    May 21, 2009 at 3:38 pm |
  139. Sandra Lynn

    I don't agree with this law, because I find it pointless. I don't understand why anyone would even think about bringing a loaded gun into a park in the first place. I go to such places to hike and look at beautiful waterfalls and birds. I'll continue to do so, with no need for a gun.

    Sandra Lynn,
    Athens, OH

    May 21, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
  140. Vinnie Vino


    I always wanted to live in the cowboy era, this would be cool the modern times wild wild west...

    Central Islip, NY

    May 21, 2009 at 3:42 pm |
  141. Tori

    Onancock, VA
    I don’t believe allowing concealed weapons on Federal property would increase the risk of criminal activity. People predisposed to do those acts don’t care if it’s legal to carry a concealed weapon. The people who carry concealed weapons LEGALLY, are less likely to act illegally. It might even save them from a bear attack!

    May 21, 2009 at 3:46 pm |
  142. Agnes from Scottsdale, AZ

    Jack: If the states feel strongly about this they should enact local laws. This whole thing is a Republican ploy which makes them look like giddy pre-teens thinking they're getting away with something by linking this issue to the credit cardd bill. Grow up kids – there are bigger issues out there.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:47 pm |
  143. Matt

    So, let me get this straight. I already have to worry about bears and overbearing rangers when I go to the national parks that my tax dollars pay for, but now I'm also going to have to wonder whether the guy further down the trail is packing heat? Why exactly do people need a concealed or loaded weapon in a national park? Are they afraid that Dick Cheney is out there waiting to shoot them in the face, and that wihout a loaded weapon they'll have no means of retaliation? This is stupidity taken to its highest level, Jack.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:48 pm |
  144. mark in Houston

    Simply.........NO !

    May 21, 2009 at 3:49 pm |
  145. Bernard Clark

    Regardless of it being in one's own home, taking a stroll through the mall, or going to a National Park; All Americans should have the right to bear arms! Some people live in violent areas and around aggressive people who hang out in "National Parks." Just because it's a National Park doesn't mean its free of "aggressors with no boundaries." Having to right to bear arms would be beneficial to Americans wanting to remain safe.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:51 pm |
  146. Lynn, Columbia, Mo..

    I feel safer in the parks with the wild animals and snakes than I would with humans with guns. This is the worst bill passed since the Patriot Act. I am appalled. And this is a prime example of why Congress is so low in the polls.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:52 pm |
  147. don (in naples, florida)

    guns should not be allowed at all. the only reason government allows them is to profit from the sales. Guns only cause harm.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:54 pm |
  148. Dave in Arizona

    When park rangers, who are charged with keeping visitors safe, say this will put everyone at increased risk, shouldn't we be listening? Is this seriously being pushed by the same people that are attacking Obama for making Americans less safe? I smell hypocrisy.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:54 pm |
  149. Jeff Crocket

    Yes, with proper permits! The same in every other setting.

    Jeff in New Britain, CT

    May 21, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
  150. Bob D, Morrisown, NJ

    Whether or not concealed handguns should be aloud in national parks is a secondary issue. Primarily, such a rider should never have been allowed to be hitched to a totally unrelated credit cards fairness bill. This firearms bill, which I personally disagree with, should have legislated on its own, in which case I doubt that would no have passed on its own merits.

    May 21, 2009 at 3:55 pm |
  151. Steven Bradley

    I'm thinking that in case of a rattlesnake, or worse, those who get in trouble should be able to defend themselves. Hopefully, alcohol won't be in the mix.
    The biggest problem with guns is in urban areas. Mixing guns with alcohol and drugs is insane.
    West Sand Lake, NY

    May 21, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
  152. Mark Dudzik

    In short ... no, guns do not belong.

    This is a want thing (by the few), not a need thing.

    Does anyone really need a handgun in Yellowstone??

    The National Parks are a supposed to provide a respite from such things, a safe haven!


    May 21, 2009 at 4:02 pm |
  153. Rich (Hillsborough, NC)


    Yes! Think of it this way: deer and squirrels choose not to abide by the law and are ever-present and threatening with the guns they carry. We put ourselves at risk in national parks every day by not being heavily armed to defend ourselves from the unwanted attention of the so-called "wildlife". I, for one, won't have it.

    And Frisbee golfers beware! Next time you interrupt my picnic due to a poor throw, your disc becomes my skeet.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
  154. Alex in Seattle

    Yes, it should be allowed. In fact, I did not know it wasn't. I wonder why the Bill of Rights stopped at the national park gate. Yes, there will be folks who poach and vandalize, but they are already doing that regardless of the law. I have legally carried a concealed weapon and would appreciate the protection from two and four legged predators in today's world.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:03 pm |
  155. Andy in Vancouver, BC

    Jack, I thought gun rights arguments were all about "the right to bear arms", not "the right to arm bears"

    May 21, 2009 at 4:04 pm |
  156. The Broker.

    You still here? Guns? America was built on guns. The right to arm. Only America. All America can decide this. You start out as you mean to end. But which came first.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:04 pm |
  157. Michelle in Pennsylvania

    I have no problem with allowing visitors to take weapons for self-protection, particularly in a wilderness area. where there are predators a loaded rifle can be a good idea. But are concealed handguns necessary? Even speech can be regulated according to time, place and manner. Is carrying a concealed, loaded firearm into the backwoods really that much more important?

    May 21, 2009 at 4:04 pm |
  158. Eileen Peabody MA


    My problem with this issue is the word CONCEALED.

    Why must these weapons be concealed???? hmmmmmm

    May 21, 2009 at 4:05 pm |
  159. Martin in Shoreline, WA

    Yes they should. The idea of going camping without a firearm seems suicidal to me. Liberals would rather have you eaten by a bear, than to shoot the bear.

    Yes, it will probably lead to increased poaching. So what. Find these people and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Increased vandalism? Since when have guns contributed to grafitti? I swear, liberals are utter morons sometimes.

    But then again, so are conservatives. They voted for Bush/Cheney. Twice. There is a deeper issue here, as there almost always is. We need to outlaw "riders", and decide each issue on it's own merits. We have to stop letting legislators attach pet projects to crucial legislation. This will also stop blatantly dishonest claims, such as saying John Kerry voted against body armor for our troops.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:06 pm |
  160. boxer girl in iowa

    Maybe states need to set their own laws since the dems seem to be afraid of the NRA. All i hear is " guns don't kill people ,people kill people". I'm really tired of hearing that. It's pretty sad they had to attach it to a credit card bill. How desperate is that..My answer is no, they should not be allowed in national parks. Concealed or otherwise.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  161. Anthony....Swedesboro, NJ

    Great,Jack! Now these Elmer Fudds will be all over our national parks shooting everything that moves. Say goodbye to all the endangered species. The second amendment addresses militia not every Tom, Dick and Elmer. Let's face it, the NRA is powerful and unrelenting.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:07 pm |
  162. Bill from pa

    Absolutely. I am a registered democrat and a life member(for over 35 years) of the NRA. As far as I'm concerned, every law-abiding citizen in this country is entitled to arm and defend him or herselves any where, anytime. The thing I find most revealing is how those who don't like the idea of the general populace being armed, like the FOP and the NP rangers, feel nobody but they should be armed. Think about that!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:09 pm |
  163. OBDAG in Appleton, WI

    No isa my simple answer regarding guns in National parks. I would say OK if they had to be visible ans as well only loaded when immenient danger indicated that would be a wise move, such as a bear indicating it was about to attack. The garbage about protecting the second amendment is just that. Everyone with a brain in their head knows the Republicans and their party are in bed with the NRA. I'm always amazed at how the Republicans think that most Americans are brain dead and they continue to try to think for me when in fact they are dead wrong. When was the last time a Democrat shot his hunting partner? I hope the President delivers his first veto on this bill if passed as it currently is. A veto is actually more important than the credit card stuff as I see it.anyway.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:09 pm |
  164. Abdul

    Guns should not be allowed in national parks because it opens a gate for accidents to occur.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:09 pm |
  165. Greg Ontario

    You sure like poking the hornets nest don't you Jack? I know that during the 1930's those who had a gun never went hungry and those that didn't stood in line at the soup kitchens. It's the word concealed that rubs me the wrong way and it should kill any bill. Remember you have trained Park Rangers that don't need the extra pressure of dealing with a park full of Dirty Harrys' looking a snake or a bear.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:10 pm |
  166. Zack

    Guns don't do damage people do, and they can’t stop violent people from entering the parks, so no it really doesn't matter. If someone REALLY wants to bring a gun to national parks there going to no matter what the law is. What would you need a gun and a national park for anyways?

    May 21, 2009 at 4:11 pm |
  167. Eleanora Feucht, Mt. Laurel, N.J.

    Why do they want it made legal only in National Parks? Why not everywhere.? Are they trying to reduce the population? We should
    put all the people who want this bill passed in the National parks sut the gates, and see what happens.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
  168. Melanie

    Great...Just what we need. Drinking campers with guns. I guess I'll be avoiding US nationa parks from now on.

    Nanaimo, BC, Canada

    May 21, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  169. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    No, because I have a problem when Congress passes an amendment related to the 2nd amendment of the Constitution through a consumer bill. I would return the bill! The credit card bill needs to be about credit card bills! Elected officials are not just elected to please their constituency they are elected to respect the constitution and how does the 2nd amendment of the constitution fits into a credit card bill beside people already have the privilege to pay for their guns by credit!!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  170. Martha, Alabama

    No. There was no restriction against gun-owners going to national parks – they just couldn't bring guns. This has nothing to do with second amendment rights. Allowing gun totin' NRAers into the parks will lead to one thing – innocent people getting shot or wounded.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  171. Ken in NC

    Jack, the Park Bears are dangerous enough without carrying concealed and loaded guns.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  172. Chris

    Yes. Because we need to make it easier to kill precious and protected wild life.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  173. Tony L........Oregon

    This doesn't sound good at all Jack...Can you imagine Dick Cheney, with a loaded gun in a National park???????????

    May 21, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
  174. ofytina

    Should loaded, concealed weapons really be allowed anywhere? I find it ridiculous that the gun lobby has so much power!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  175. Dave

    Yes! Give the animals the means to protect themselves.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  176. Dixie Price

    I'm horrified by this because my summer/fall trips are centered around national parks – and now I'm scared to go. I've never worried about guns in national parks when I've gone in the past, but this is frightening. All it takes is one dispute between armed visitors and an innocent bystander (me) can end up dead.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  177. Tony IL

    Evidently lawmakers didn't read the bill. They also didn't read about the people that was killed in national parks in the last couple of years. There's absolutely no connection between the credit card reform and the loaded/concealed gun bill. It's business as usual with lawmakers. All lawmakers should be fired and replaced.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  178. V Wood

    Heavens NO we shouldn't allow legal guns in our parks... just the illegal ones criminals bring in anyway.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
  179. sunday weiss

    The right to bear arms, must never be taken from Americans who are non-felons. One of the only reasons Americans dont get their homes overrun by gangsters and home invasions, and drugies is the idea, the occupants may be able to shot back at the invaders and save themselves or proterty. No way do I think criminals and gangsters and felons should be the only Americans who control guns which is what would happen if America takes guns from its citizens

    May 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  180. Flyingwolf, Manchester NH

    NO! Too many endangered and threatened species are being poached for furs and trophies. The only way these people should be allowed to carry guns into parks would be if the animals had access to guns to defend themselves.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  181. Josh from Chicago

    You just don't understand Jack, those bears steal Picnic baskets.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  182. Alan - Buxton, Maine

    Guns are to kill things with. I don't know why anyone would be going to a national park to kill something. If guns will be allowed there should also be military guards to keep these gun toting psychopaths from doing harm to themselves and others. How did this provision ever get into a bill about credit cards? Obama needs to veto this bill until that part of it is removed.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  183. Dan

    Yes they should be, the bill of rights gives us the right to bare arms, but the govt doesn't let us bare them anywhere. Last i checked it wasn't a crime to enjoy guns legally and responsably.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  184. Carole Turner

    No guns should be allowed in National Parks. It will promote poaching and accidental deaths.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  185. john faulk

    Yes, keep the guns in legal citizens hands. If you start outlawing guns anywhere then the criminals will be the only ones with guns...dah!!!!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  186. seeksense

    no way!
    it's enough that everyone has a gun in their car, house, school etc.
    now we have to worry that someone in a park is going to mistake you for a bear and shoot you ? horrible and wrong!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  187. Jane (Minnesota)

    People are going to bring concealed weapons in where ever they want to anyway – Congress really should make it illegal to conceal the weapons – I say keep them out in the open so we can see them.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  188. Dan Warner

    Yes. Law abiding citizens are not going to vandalize, poach, or threaten anyone. The purpose of having a loaded concealed weapon is for self protection. Leaving law abiding citizens unarmed only makes them easy prey for those criminal elements who won't obey the law anyway. This is a common sense move and I support it.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  189. marlene pinto nevada

    Dear Jack
    I feel that it would be totally irresponsible to allow this type of behavior. We have enough crime in our country and the police have more than enough on their plates.
    I hope and pray our legislators start to use some common sense sooner rather than later.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  190. vern-anaheim,ca

    i don't object to loaded gun s being allowed in national parks but only by those who have a license.i am aganist automatic weapons in the hands of anyone as most people don't have the training how to use them.i do as i was a automatic rifleman while in the army.these weapons are not meant for civilian use,only for war and use by law enforcement

    May 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  191. Fred, Northville, MI

    Only if the buffalo, eagles, wolves, bear, deer and other animal inhabitants are granted the same right.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  192. Linda

    This honestly, baffles me. Why, is there a need for a gun in a national park, unless there is a desire to poach? These aren't Constitutional rights, these are poacher's rights.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  193. David Segal

    What the heck does this legislation have to do with the credit card legislation. I don't know the answer on the gun portion, I do know that unless the President strikes it from the bill and tells congress to let it stand on its' own, it will be the same old business that was promised to be done away with. No more earmarks – take the guns and shoot the earmarkers.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm |
  194. Ellen

    NO LOADED GUNS in national parks!
    Totally demoralized that so many Democrats in Congress would cave on this issue and that President Obama would sign it into law!!

    Petaluma, CA

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  195. Jim Middendorf

    Yes. If people are allowed to carry in churches, bars, city parks, etc. why not national parks. What is so different about a national park?

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  196. Kathy Carpenter

    Sure, why not have guns in our national parks. We are getting shot at in malls, in schools, in churches, on the streets of our cities, taking tests for citizenship. Seems to be it is only fair we also get shot at while we are on vacation.

    Stafford Springs, Ct

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  197. robert potts

    yes, of course. If we license people to carry firearms there should be no limits. If we are not confident in our licensing then perhaps that should be the questioned. This is our governments role to make sure we are safe by screening those licensed.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  198. James

    Absolutely! It's a 2nd Amendment right. The real danger here is Congress modifying contracts, which are protected under the Constitution. This is really a blow to free enterprise, not to guns!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  199. Tony

    No, guns should not be allowed in national parks. The crime rate in the United States has consistently dropped since 1973 by DoJ statistics. If fact, based on that, why has there been this proliferation of gun sales? There is no reason to believe a person will be less safe in a national park than anywhere else in America.

    We have a National Guard, state, local and federal law enforcement agencies as well as a military. Are guns even needed anymore by average citizens as a "ready militia"? Let's hope the U.S. can join the 21st century at some point, instead of languishing around in the 19th.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  200. Darshan, NY

    Why do people need guns in national parks? The only reason that a person would need a gun in a national park would be to shoot someone or commit a crime. In fact why do people need to own guns anyway. There are plenty of law enforcement officials to protect America's law biding citizens. I say the 2nd amendment should be repealed!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  201. Dennis Cotton

    Political Cowards: I'll never go to a national park, that's for sure!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  202. Kevin

    In civilization, only police and military should have guns. The direction of this country should be to tighten the laws on civilians having guns, not loosening the laws. The second ammendment was written a long time ago. We should modernize our thinking and protect innocent citizens. Increase the penalties for gun crimes and discourage in every way gun ownership by civilians.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  203. Jason, NYer in Texas

    Absolutely not. What reason do people have to bring concealed weapons into national parks and wildlife preserves? I'm pretty sure this not what the founding fathers had in mind; seeing as how the whole basis of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to bear arms in the event the federal government takes away too many rights from the states.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  204. Evelyn, St. Louis

    NO!!! Too many guns are on the streets now. Innocent people are getting killed including young children. What once ended in a fist fight now ends with a bullet. No more guns, please.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  205. Kathy

    No, loaded guns should NOT be allowed in national parks! This legislation exposes the leadership of the NRA as reckless ideologues, many members of Congress as running scared from the NRA, and the system of attaching piggy-back legislation to unrelated bills as counter to the national interest.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  206. Stephanie

    Absolutely not. I am so glad you brought that to our attention.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  207. Ilene

    OMG! Who needs to bring weapons into our National Parks? We take our children, friends and extended family to these places to camp, hike,etc... I will feel less secure knowing that gun crazies can legally be in the next campsite!!! What does this have to do with the credit card companies. What kind of morons would even combine this?

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  208. hapuna haze

    Jack, It seems you have asked the question in a very biased fashion. Guns can only be carried concealed and loaded if the people are properly licensed for concealed carry by the State the park is in. In most instances this is a rigorous licensing procedure with background checks and fingerprinting confirming that they are law abiding citizens. That is quite different from what you asked.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  209. T.J. Sullivan

    Frankly, I'm not that concerned about whether a few gun freaks want to wander around national parks shooting squirrels. I'm actually encouraged that something this minor is the extent of the gun lobby's victories lately. What annoys me is that Democrats are operating from a place of fear and self-preservation by allowing this. Maybe the place guns would be the most beneficial would be holstered to legislators in a locked joint session of Congress.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  210. Jay from MD

    I have no problem with people having guns.

    We already have laws that apply to the illegal use of guns. That should be the focus of enforcement. Restrictions matter very little. Laws don't stop criminals. They simply make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to comply with laws.

    Kind of like the old issue of locking your doors. Locked doors only stop honest people... they never stop criminals.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  211. Van Simpson

    What is the problem? If you have a permit and can carry a gun pretty much anywhere else. What makes parks different?

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  212. karen commings

    No they shouldn't. Maybe our representatives should worry about those of us who aren't members of the NRA. We vote, too.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  213. Gene

    I hate that this was tacked onto an unrelated bill but will be very happy once it is law.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  214. Dwayne Toppenberg

    NO! I go to the national parks for peace and rest. I don't want to be afraid that some crazy kook has a concealed gun next to me. Keep guns out of the National Parks. Dwayne in Campbellsville KY

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  215. Michelle

    Heck no guns shouldn't be allowed in our National Parks! These parks are where families camp and enjoy the great outdoor – others camp, drink , etc... Just what we need – a bunch of morons walking around with loaded guns! What's next – guns at school sporting events?

    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  216. ray schmidt

    Yes.Why are you people so paranoid?99% of gun owners are responsabe citizens. We are not a bunch of wild eyed maniacs just aching to shoot some poor animal or human.
    I do not hunt, but I do believe in the right of self protection.


    May 21, 2009 at 4:16 pm |
  217. Bob

    We all need that 45 under the seat to protect ourselves from those violent gangs of chipmunks.

    You need a working brain not a loaded gun to enjoy the wilderness!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  218. Wes

    By ALL means, YES, concealed weapons should be allowed. Persons with concealed weapons license are not your criminals. When the liberals in our nation learn that we will all be better off. I served 25 years in the military with NUMEROUS wartime deployments and find it a disgrace that we are now trying to limit weapons rather than thugs in my country!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  219. Zane

    I say lets make this a non-partisan and simple issue by consulting the Constitution of the United States. The answer is absolutely and unequivocally: yes, it should be allowed. Any attempt to hinder or get around the second amendment is an attempt to dismantle the Constitution.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  220. Brian Smith PhD

    Oh yeah.....let them have guns in the parks... then they can shoot Smokey The Bear when he tries to tell them not to start fires.

    How stupid....

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  221. Jeanne

    Dear Jack,
    These so called leaders have definately left the planet. Why not let visitors carry loaded weapons in the Senate and the house. Next, the NRA will be lobbying for students to carry weapons in school. How about after toddler swim lessons, target practice for 3 year olds.
    Washington has definately become the land of Nuts.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  222. clint

    Blah, blah, blah...conceal-carry is going to create a new Old West, conceal-carry in national parks is a disaster waiting to happen. Since the former did not come to fruition, why should people believe the latter would occur? The evidence simply does not substantiate the fears expressed by the anti-gun crowds.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  223. J Travers Devine

    Unless and until someone is ready to try to change the Constitution I don't want to hear any more about Gun Control. I don't like guns on the street, don't think the police should carry them and sure don't think half-wits like Dick Cheney should have access to them but.....the Second Amendment is the law and all the pussyfooting around it with nice sounding, well meaning restrictions is just circumvention of that law of the land. Get over it or go for a Constitutional Amendment. I would support such an amendment but as long as the second amendment stands, I support the constitutional right of every dimwit and crackpot to carry arms.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  224. mj

    Absolutely NOT! Adding the Coburn amendment to the credit card bill is a perfect example of the kind of things that need to be changed in Washington. This gun law couldn't be passed on its own and the NRA and Coburn know that. This practice of attaching unrelated amendments is as much a problem as earmarks in Congress.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  225. Mike McCartney

    If you have a concealed weapons permit you can carry a weapon in a resturant or a wal-mart. So what is the big deal about carrying a weapon in a National Park which is usually a wooded area.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  226. michael

    Look if I use my credit card to pay for gas to visit a national park, then why shouldnt I protect myself against any wild pigs that might have swine flu? and dont tell me the pigs are not sick unless park rangers waterboarded them , then I will believe you

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  227. Genola Birmingham, AL

    NO WAY! Guns shouldn't be allowed in the national parks. What's the point? Are they planning on shooting the protected wild life? They say it's not a "gotcha" law, but is certainly does appear to be so.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  228. Ruth

    No and I plan to work hard to find a better democrat to run against those who promoted this kind of craziness!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  229. David

    Yes... exercise the rights that allows America to be what it is; free. Sure there should be gun laws. I don't want anyone shooting anyone. But I don't want to be an easy target for criminal activity. Say yes to guns!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  230. brandon rohm

    yes we should until people abuse the law and then it could be revisited.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  231. Ray Tokareff

    concealed weapons for everyone would make for a much more polite country

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  232. JoAnn C in San Diego CA

    Jack, Just what we need. Another gun in a place where people go to find peace and relaxation with their families. I am sure Yogi the Bear will be thrilled too. Another cartoon scenario that ends up with Gun lobbists winning again!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  233. kerry

    No, absolutely, NO. Where are the leaders in congress? They were elected to lead not work to protect THEIR re-election. Many in congress sicken me. Hey! If you voted for the war in Iraq, you get the prisioners locked up in your own state! The American taxpaper is paying either way!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  234. Ed Weaver

    The credit card bill should be vetoed with a call for a clean bill for the President to sign. Enough of the gun lobby's control of our country. There is a place for guns and it is not in our national parks. And while I am at it - there is no place for assault weapons in the hands of the public. They should be for the military and law enforcement only.


    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  235. John

    Guns should not be allowed anyware. If the NRA would spend as much time backing issues which save lives instead ofissues which take lives, what a wonderful place this woul be.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  236. Vicki Chavez

    YES! It's our constitutional right, need you be reminded?

    May 21, 2009 at 4:17 pm |
  237. Karyn Kay

    It is very disturbing that the right to carry concealed loaded weapons was attached to the credit card protection bill. All those people shot accidentally (or on purpose) in national parks will need good health care and reliable credit cards to pay for their survival. Without immediate and adequate steps toward national credit card oversight, those folks injured in stupid shooting incidents will be left paddling up a river of no return—as will the Democrats in two years if they don’t find a way to stop bowing to the gun-toting minority. It seems clear we need credit oversight more than guns.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  238. Michael, Nebraska

    Absolutley not, but if you ask me they should not be anywhere at all! It is very ignorant of these politicians to support gun rights when everytime you turn on the television, there is a story about how people were hurt by some shooting somewhere! There has been numerous incidents just over the last year. My question is, where is the leadership on this issue???

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  239. Clay

    Absolutely not. If these people who carry guns are so afraid to go into our national parks without firearms then they should just stay at home. Our parks are supposed to be places of refuge for both humans and animals. And what will be the NRA's excuse when the first person is killed in a national park by a stray bullet fired by some drunk idiot with a firearm: that's the cost of maintaining our freedom? Give me a break.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  240. Rebecca Alwin

    Neither concealed and loaded guns or concealed and loaded ammendments make this a better country. I'm very disappointed in any representatives who voted for this.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  241. Charles from Illinois

    You bet they should be allowed like any place else that is legal to carry a concealed weapon.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  242. Deb

    Loaded guns should ABSOLUTELY NOT be permitted in our national parks. What purpose does that serve? Children are playing, people are jogging, families are enjoying picnics. Is a gun actually required for those activities? NO. This is a prime example of why nothing gets accomplished in Washington. An unrelated measure is attached to a bill (and it's usually from the opposing party), then they all take the heat if it doesn't pass. To take an expression from my childhood...DUH! Why is this still permitted? Is the general public really that much more intelligent than those in office?

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  243. Dracula

    No, loaded guns should not be allowed in national parks. I can't even imagine why the NRA wants to push this issue – are criminals running rampant in the parks? Are they scared of bears? Is that it? We need to shoot Yogi, too?

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  244. Gene

    I hate that this was tacked onto an unrelated bill but will be very happy once it is law.

    Carrollton, Georgia

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  245. Betty Stockton

    Guns have only one function; to enable people to kill. Isn't there enough killing without making victims of animals. There's nothing less atractive than a person with a gun.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  246. Jeremy

    This can only go badly. How long would it be before we started seeing suicides and murder victims showing up in National Parks? How long before heated family arguments or turf wars over the best photo spot for Mt. Rushmore turn deadly? The lobbyists who advocate for laws such as these and the officials who give into them for fear of losing their seats on the floor consistently fail to prove the need or efficacy of such measures. We trust our parks and safety to the park officials, federal marshals, and various other well-trained and responsive staff, not Mr. Thomas from North Carolina with his 9mm in his blue jeans. How can this not go badly?

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  247. Debbie, Florida

    I can tell you one thing, Jack. I won't be going to any National Parks again if Republicans are scurrying around with concealed weapons. The bears are scary, but THEY'RE not crazy.

    What a disgrace to attach this amendment to a Credit Card Reform bill and to get it passed! These Congressmen have no shame.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  248. Bryan

    The only rational reason for a person in this day and age to carry any kind of gun is for hunting food. Where better else to hunt Bambi then in a beautiful and pristine forest. Our National Forests should serve all those gun toting hillbillies quite nicely in providing them with food for their tables. Not!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  249. George Moran

    I'm 65 and a life long Democrat. As to guns in National parks, No!, No!, No!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  250. CJ

    Handguns for concealed carry should be allowed in parks if a person has a concealed carry permit from their home state. I don't see why all of you anti gun Dems are so concerned about it. People who have concealed carry permits have gone through the background checks and training and have been given permission to do this. I don't see a problem with it and you shouldn't either. Quit being so paranoid about the 2nd Amendment. There are grizzly bears in some National Parks and they have killed hikers and campers. There is nothing wrong from protecting yourself from harm with a concealed handgun if the need arises. Or maybe you're rooting for the bears?

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  251. Lane Good

    We need an un-NRA that supports politicians who don't support guns. We don't need guns in national parks any more than we need them in schools, nurseries or churches.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  252. James Moore

    Haven't we learned anything from the crimes of violence happening in other states, which involve guns. Now, all we need is some unstable, depressed person to walk in a national park, and open fire among visitors.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  253. Perry

    NO! If you allow a gun to be somewhere, someone is eventually going to get shot.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  254. S. Smith

    Concealed weapons should be allowed. Do people honestly think that just because you're in a national park there aren't going to be any criminals there? We have an inherent RIGHT to protect ourselves against people and animals. There have been many cases of bear and other large animal attacks against people in which the people were completely defenseless. In addition, there have also been gruesome murders in national parks. Police and forest or national park employees can't be everywhere at once. WE have to be able to protect ourselves.

    Washington state.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
  255. Kate Stonehedge

    Of Course they should. What a dumb question. Good people carrying concealed weapons make EVERYONE SAFER.

    You're out in the woods, because you followed the law, you are un-armed. Criminals, "the people who don't obey the law" are and want your: money, life, children, wife ... pick one.

    Sure, you could call the park ranger after you hike back to the ranger station if they are there.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  256. Ray in Mexico

    I dont like guns and have never owned one since the old 22 rifle that I had as a boy in Oklahoma. I live in Mexico now, enjoying the good life that I worked many years to obtain. Here in Mexico the weapon of choice is the knife, almost every murder is associated with a knife, they have very strict anti gunlaws here, so instead of a gun they kill with a knife, where do you stop the controls. If the USA has anti gun laws then what next, would we outlaw all knifes that are the size which could kill someone. Just shows that governments cant legislate morality, those who want to hurt will do it with whatever is handy at the time.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  257. Janey

    That was just too sneaky. Absolutely NOT. Just what we need a bunch of amatuers with guns, thinking they are shooting at bears. I thought there was a law that said bills can't be combined like that. What happened to that?

    May 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  258. Terry, New York

    Jack. Loaded fire arms in the national parks? No! No! No! I am a national parks passport holder and just returned from Grand Canyon and Suguara National Parks without encountered a single gun nut toting in the parks. It was a wonderful family experience. If the NRA gets its way, they will end up being the only park visitors as I will avoid them like the Swine Flu. The President should veto the credit card bill and return it to Congress for a clean copy.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  259. Lovell Stallard

    Jack here in Tennessee we just passed a bill that let people carry loaded guns in to business that serve alcohol. I thank carrying guns in parks is nothing compared to drunks carrying guns in bars. I thank we have lost our minds. I do not believe guns are the problem it is the people that such stupid laws

    May 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  260. Sal Palma

    Individuals licensed, by their state, to carry a concealed weapon have gone through local police and FBI criminal background checks. Any convictions, felony or misdameanors invalidate the individual, any arrests or domestic violence convictions, invalidate the applicant. People with concealed carry permits don't poach, they don't have criminal backgrounds, and they don't constitue a threat. They obey laws and respect others.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  261. Jaycie, Los Angeles

    I live in the Santa Monica Mountains in Los Angeles. Part of the area near my home is part of the National Park System, and I walk there daily. So, now, in addition to having to worry about speeding drivers, graffiti guys and snakes I will now have to beware of people carrying loaded guns? Give me a break! A park is supposed to be a place of solace and refuge; with loaded guns on the premises, it will be neither. Any, by the way, park rangers do NOT carry guns!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  262. Allison

    ABOLUTELY NOT! I do not want to be wondering who has a loaded gun or AK-47 while I'm in a park. These NRA fanatics are crazy – what do they want to do with their loaded guns in parks? Who or what do they plan on shooting? It will just put the safety of visitors at risk.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  263. John

    Yes guns should be allowed. an unarmed person is the perfect victim....
    dont every forget that.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  264. connie kallas

    No!! The reason this country has so many murders is because of all the people walking around with loaded guns. We're not still living in the 1800's, but you'd never know it by the way people cling to their guns in this country. No one should have a handgun except the police and the military-you don't need one to hunt. Guns have one function only, and that's to kill.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  265. Preston Irving

    I am in full agreement that concealed and loaded weapons be allowed in U. S. National Parks. I frequently travel on the Natchez Trace Parkway in Mississippi. Especially at night it is a haven for thieves and sexual predators, mostly at rest stops. I will defend my family and myself with deadly force, if necessary. I hold a state weapon permit and am legally able to carry a weapon.

    Preston E. Irving, Retired
    Tupelo MS Police Dept.
    Life Member, National Rifle Association

    May 21, 2009 at 4:19 pm |
  266. Brian Hallaq

    Jack, of course concealed carry permit holders should be allowed to exercise those rights in National Parks. First, criminals will be armed no matter what law is passed, and no criminal qualifies for these licenses because they require background checks. This law would only apply to law abiding citizens, and would offer them the ability to protect themselves in a place where law enforcement protection is sparce at best.

    Besides, EVERY jurisdiction that has allowed licensed concealed carry has seen a reduction in violent crime. Can you name me another bit of legislation that has so consistently produced positive results?

    May 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  267. Betty Tell

    You, Jack are absolutely right these people don't have the guts to stand up to the lobbyist. National campsites should be for families and campers who are not there for hunting animals or humans. Let them use their cell phones if they need assistance .

    May 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  268. Sean

    There is abesolutely no need for guns in national parks. The parks are the last places in the U.S. that need guns, they were established originally to highlight beautiful untouched landscapes and spread knowledge of our environment. Not only would guns promote poaching in places like Yellowstone, but it is another wrong path to take to keep guns regulated. National parks are places that should be cherished, not enforced.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  269. Kevin

    I am deeply saddened the tranquility of our nation's most beautiful places will be contaminated by the sound of gunfire. The gun lobby always argues that responsible people have a right to gun sport. What about my right to sport in national parks free of gunfire?

    May 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  270. Marilyn Hendee

    The idea of allowing guns in national parks is an outrage. Why would you need a gun? As a general rule, hunting is prohibited in national parks. You don't need to protect yourself from people with guns because up till now it is illegan to have a gun in a park. For me, and I'm sure many others, going to a national park is like going to church. It's a spiritual experience. We don't take guns to church. Period. This whole idea stinks. To add it to a bill protecting citizens from the greedy practices of credit card companies suggests an unholy alliance with the sponsors of the add on.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  271. Marcia Stuart

    This is the most insane thing I've heard yet. WHAT in the world is the justification for why these people think they need to be carrying a concealed weapon in a national park? Who or what do they plan to shoot??? This puts my family at risk and with this danger it will keep me away from places that I love. that are and should be safe and free for all of us to enjoy.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  272. Purnell, Kankakee, IL.

    Yes, most people would leave others alone if they thought that anyone around them just might have a weapon on them. Would any of you really take that chance of being shot because your life is going wrong at the moment to take your problems out on a total stranger I think not

    May 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  273. Tim in Texas

    I'm not sure how it's going to increase poaching. Won't the sound of gun shots still be investigated? Will this make it make it any easier to sneak a poached animal carcass out of the parks? I say allow it. Gun laws only make sure law abiding citizens won't be carrying. The criminals will carry either way.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  274. Anna

    No. We should not allow consealed guns anywhere. That is how people get killed and die. If people need to defend their homes then they should only keep their guns in their homes.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  275. Clayton Davis

    Why shouldn't the Second Amendment apply in national parks, same as everywhere else?

    May 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  276. Gary

    Absolutely Yes!

    To Carrying a concealed firearm , one must have a concealed carry license.

    The National Parks, that is where the dangerous animals reside.
    No background check is needed for the 1st amendment..

    May 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  277. ken englander/ west orange, nj

    What possible reason could there be for anyone to carry a loaded, concealed weapon in one of OUR national parks? When is this country going to wake up and reject the National Rifle Association's irrational position that guns are good? We have a congress full of wimps who are afraid to do what is in the best interests of the country. When law inforcement officers and their organizations have said repeatedly that people with guns kill other people what more does one need to know.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  278. James Reichard, Hartford WI

    Responsible licensed concealed carry permit citizens have never been responsible for increased vandalism, poaching or any other crimes with their registered legal guns. In fact, licensed concealed carry individuals are the intelligent law abiding type citizens that this country needs more of. States that have had the concealed carry permit laws for years have all seen a decrease rather than an increase in crime. Why should the law be different just because it is a park?

    May 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  279. Kelly in Atlanta

    You've asked the wrong question Jack. The real question is how on earth does a concealed weapon amendment have anything to do with credit card law? This is just a single snapshot of what is wrong with our entire legal system. At one point in my life I wanted to be a lawmaker until it dawned upon me one day that if I wanted to dance in circles for a living, I could just be a preschool teacher and we all know the preschoolers would be easier to deal with (and far more honest) than congress. If this bill gets signed into law it will go against every reason I voted for Obama. I was mislead into believing that he would not let things like this happen anymore. Sadly, in our quid pro qou society you have to sell your hand to buy a ring. Ridiculous.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  280. Richard

    Absolutely not! Where's common sense here? Why are they needed? Guns in National Parks will increase danger to park goers, allow more crime, robberies and vandalism.

    Of course the Gun Lobby has Oboma over a barrel. How can he veto the credit card bill? This shows how Washington works.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  281. Shawn

    We should be allowed! I'm a concealed carry permit holder. We are not the problem. It's the people who can't get permits that are the problem. When one of these fear mongers gets attacked by a mountain lion or bear then they will change their tune as a permit holder saves their life!


    Pageland, SC

    May 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm |
  282. Amaka

    No, concealed weapon should no be allowed in national parks. What is the need for this? It is well documented that people are more likely to use guns when they have it vs when they do not. I agree with you that "These people are nauseating". It is disheartening that congress cannot get beyond politics to do what is good for us as Americans, and our world. The recent talks around the closing of Gitmo is another good example. Our elected officials so often lforgo their moral compass to preserve their political offices.

    Fishers Indiana

    May 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  283. Ed

    In a word YES! Persons with legal handgun permits have been scrutinized and investigated by their respective states who issued the permits in the first place! If the law abiding citizen with a legal concealed weapon permit can carry the weapon into a store, or another facility, what difference does it make if they carry it in a national park? This person with the legal permit, met all the criteria that their respective state requires prior to being issued the permit, and just because they happen to be in a national park does not mean that their sound judgement is going to change one way or the other. Each concealed weapon permit holder has taken a required course on the use of deadly force, and to restrict were they carry the weapon is just another attempt by the anti-gun lobby to voice their lame opinion! Political correctness at it's highest!


    May 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  284. JDMAE86

    First Define poaching... "Poaching is the illegal hunting, killing or capturing of animals."

    People that are poaching on Federal land are going to break the law regardless if there is a law against it. They are going to carry firearms regardless of any law b.c they do not care if they are breaking the law. And I do not know ANY ONE that hunts with pistols. You can not conceal a long gun that you would hunt with. So what is the problem? The argument against Concealed Carry Permit holders is a crock of BS. You need to worry about the people that are Carrying illegally to begin with & stop punishing the law abiding.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  285. phil mickey

    Why not? If you are legally able to carry a concealed weapon, you have been deemed by the authorities to not be a criminal or public threat.
    Illegal poachers, shooters, etc are going to do it anyway regardless of how many regulations you pass.
    You should not feel threatened by such a law. If you've ever walked down the street in New Hampshire, Vermont, Utah or many other states you already have been unknowingly surrounded by legally concealed handguns and you haven't been injured or shot yet.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  286. W.E.

    CHL holders have back ground checks done and I have no issue with it at all. How many gun crimes are commited by CHL holders now? Very very few. Why would that change if they are permitted to carry in National Parks? Its funny how the anti gun crowd said mass murders would happen every single day when the CHL was allowed here in Texas. It never happened.

    Pardon any spelling mistakes, I was in a hurry cooking lunch.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  287. Jim F - Oregon

    Used to be that we went to the National Parks to enjoy the outdoors, the splendor and the wildlife. Sounds like now we can get all of that and much more. A generous helping of your fellow visitors packin' heat. Now that takes the "great outdoors" experience to a whole new level. Yipee!

    May 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  288. Chuck

    No and how this bill got attached through the back door of Congress is
    amazing. We do not have to wait till election time to resolve this. Check and find out of your reprsentative voted for it. If mine did I will remember it come election time. It's time our representives take a stand against such foolishness. Who needs a gun in a state park anyway.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  289. Collin S. in Glenwood Springs, CO

    Jack, as someone who lives surrounded by National Forests, I can promise you there will be multiple shootings in the first year of this bill, we had a family shot and killed by some wacko 3 years ago because "the family was making noise and littering" , now every wacko will be packing heat in our forests. We also had a hunter from Wisconsin shoot and kill a chocolate lab near Vail. He said in court he feared for his life. Guns have no place in our National Parks and Forests, people cannot be trusted, and that doesn't even get into the amount of protected animals who will be killed in the upcoming years by others "fearing for their lives". The Democrats have proven how spineless they are. (I have a printed list of who voted for, or against for future reference.)

    May 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  290. Steph

    What on earth do concealed weapons have to do with abusive credit card policies???? Very sneaky GOP! I don't want anyone from the right to ever, ever complain about anyone else putting some unrelated "stuff" in a bill!

    Oh, and NO. I don't want to worry about whether the hiker I run into while walking down a secluded trail in a national park is packing heat. Didn't a man open fire on and kill unsuspecting children swimming at a lake in a national park in northern Michigan last summer? If I remember correctly, he then escaped into the forest and created panic for everyone at the national park.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  291. Jim Hartnett

    Yes! Do the research- those with Concealed Weapon Permits do not use their weapons for illegal purposes. Many of these people responding are the same types that claimed violence would be out of control in states like Texas and Florida when the began athe right to carry. That did not happen. Also, no where in the 2nd Amd. is the clause, "except in national parks." Third (to Chris from Pa)- I would feel the need more in a national park than in a city. In many instances there is no help nearby so I'd rather have my weapon available to protect my family than call 911 and hope they find our corpses.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  292. Dick

    If I want to vandalize or poach in a park do you seriously think I would concern myself with gun laws?
    This bill is for people who already have a concealed carry permit to be able to do what they were doing prior to some judge blocking it. I mean think about it. If a criminal wants to carry a gun, do you think they will care what the law says? Permit holders bother to go through the process of paying a fee, having a background check, and in some cases taking a required class.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  293. bill

    The bill states only those who have passed the background check to
    obtain a concealed weapon permit ,and then only if that particular state law permits, are allowed to carry loaded weapons in the parks.

    If you review all crimes and/or poaching incidents, these people are almost never involved in any such incidents.

    However, the parks increasingly are the choice of criminal elements for a safe haven, It is the human animals that give rise to concern (not the indigenous species) especially for females or families hiking in remote areas.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  294. Kevin Smith

    Shame on you! This bill allows concealed carry permit holders only to carry concealed, loaded guns. They must comply with the laws on the state they are in. These permit holders have undergone criminal background checks, fingerprinting, and handgun training. They have had to pay a considerable amount of money for their permit. They are not the unstable nut cases you make them out to be. Criminal already have their guns with them in the parks, because they are not worried about the law.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  295. jeff

    Jack, why shouldn't guns be allowed, wackos are allowed, partying and "loaded"people are allowed, in the era of budget cuts there are less and less wardens to patrol state parks so it is easy for things to get out of hand, if this happens and there are illegal guns in the parks, meaning guns carried by people who are not licensed to carry them, I should be able to protect myself. It is not going to increase poaching like I saw mentioned on the news. Licenced gun owners are more responsible than that.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  296. sandra gerhard

    Good Grief !!!!!! Why in the world would anyone need a "GUN" in a National Park???? Tell all the animals to run for cover and we need to find a place that sells "BULLET" proof tents. Sandy

    May 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  297. frank

    NO, we don't need guns in Nat. parks. If necessary, we could run a pilot program in the Senate and all other official Fed. govt. venues that are open to the public. Let's see how comforting that would be for the gun advocates.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:21 pm |
  298. Kenneth Shedaker

    I think citizen's should have the right to carry concealed all the time. If you want to stop poaching make it a crime, Like drugs. If you make it a law no one will do it . RIGHT Wake up if you want to inforce illegal activitys ENFORCE THE LAWS.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:22 pm |
  299. Stan Uzo

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not illegal to carry concealed weapon. And if that's the case, why should anyone be allowed to do so anywhere.

    May 21, 2009 at 4:22 pm |