Lost in among the rest of the news this past week was an amendment to a bill full of regulations on credit cards by Tom Coborn which, when signed, will allow legal carry pemit holders to carry their firearms in national parks.
Though it’s mired in a bill that is otherwise full of miserably bad ideas, the amendment would allow people who are demonstrably law-abiding citizens (the only kind that can get shall-issue permits) to do in national parks pretty much the same thing they do everywhere else in our society; nothing out of the ordinary. In the states nationwide that allow civilian carry (currently all but Wisconsin and Kansas), and especially the 40 “shall issue” states (where the burden is on the state to prove that a citizen can’t have a permit), permittees pretty much cause zero crime and create zero problems (inevitably, after lefty politicians, reading off the scripts the gun-control victim disarmament lobby give them, predict gore in the streets).
There is, after all, a reason that of the 32 states that have passed “Shall Issue” laws since 1983, none have repealed it via legislative action (and only Minnesota’s was overturned, on a picayune administrative technicality by an intellectually-dishonest judge, giving us a one-year gap before the legislature swept up the judge’s mess).
Of course, my “representative”, Betty McCollum, is not one to let facts, evidence, and twenty years of statistics get in her way. When blinkered ideology demands, she is right there, waiting to Mbark out the talking points on cue, like a trained ideological seal. Paul Schmelzer describes her reaction over at the Minnesoros “Independent“:
The language of Coburn’s amendment stated that the rule would “protect innocent Americans from violent crime in national parks and refuges.”
But Minnesota Democrat McCollum characterized the amendment as “a political game played at the expense of millions of families who will visit our national parks seeking enjoyment, recreation, and peace.” She continued:
“This is a shameful example of the failure of the legislative process and I would urge President Obama to veto the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights and send it back to Congress to take the guns out. What rationale is there for the need to carry a concealed weapon on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial?
Actually, McCollum is asking the wrong question reciting the wrong question, from the notes handed to her by one astroturf anti-gun group or another. The real question, in the wake of last year’s re-affirmation in the Supreme Court’s Heller decision that the Second Amendment is a right “of the people”, is “what rationale is there to prevent people who are demonstrably two orders of magnitude more law-abiding than the average citizen from exercising their legal, licensed right?”
The only rationale can be for politicians to score political points with the NRA.
Not that that’s true, but to the extent that there’s accuracy in the statement – that pols need to beware of the NRA – then good. The more the merrier.
Our national parks are treasures. They don’t need to be protected by random people carrying loaded, concealed weapons around millions of vacationing families.”
One wonders if McCollum even has a conscience; she lies so fluently.
“Rep.” McCollum; concealed carry permit holders are not “random people”. They are people who have passed background checks, taking skills courses, and are quite demonstrably better, more law-abiding, more trustworthy, more stable than 99% (literally) of your constituents.
Speaking of lopsided margins (emphasis added to the Mindy story by yours truly):
The [original credit-card bill] was divided into two parts in a parliamentary maneuver. [Senator] Coburn’s amendment passed the House by a 279 to 147 margin, and the credit card reform bill passed on a separate 361 to 64 vote. In the Senate, the combined bill passed by a 90 to 5 vote.
Betty McCollum: Liar? Puppet? Lying Puppet?
Speaking of GUNS! When is the MOB wild wild west shooting day gonna happen?
Our national parks are treasures. They don’t need to be protected by random people carrying loaded, concealed weapons around millions of vacationing families.”
One wonders if McCollum even has a conscience; she lies so fluently.
“Rep.” McCollum; concealed carry permit holders are not “random people
The word random is in respect to the fact that the person who is or is not, is unknown. I suspect you are aware of this, and it makes your accusation basely false, she did not lie, she just used a word you didn’t prefer. The comment is accurate, it may not be in the context you’d like, but it’s still accurate. You owe her an apology, she didn’t lie.
I happen to agree with your point that she has this 180 degrees on its head, it isn’t about why do people need to carry guns on the Lincoln Memorial, but rather, why should the government restrict any right? We don’t restrict Nazi’s from marching in Skokie – nor should we restrict the insecure from carrying guns wherever they may need to, to feel secure, even though evidence of such need is non-existent. The question isn’t whether they have to justify such need, they don’t, they may be goofey for wanting to, but they still don’t have to justify it, it is a RIGHT, just as you say, and a right that should be permitted without reservation.
She’s not bright. One of the astroturf antigun groups claimed that, in the wake of state carry law being applied at, say, Yellowstone and Yosemite and Rushmore, teachers were cancelling visits to the Washington Monument out of some inchoate fear.
Betty just picked it up and parroted it.
Mitch wrote:
” In the states nationwide that allow civilian carry (currently all but Wisconsin and Kansas), and especially the 40 “shall issue” states (where the burden is on the state to prove that a citizen can’t have a permit), permittees pretty much cause zero crime and create zero problems (inevitably, after lefty politicians, reading off the scripts the gun-control victim disarmament lobby give them, predict gore in the streets).”
I found the argument that states which were more favorable to allowing civilians to carry had lower crime rates to be a very persuasive one. I don’t oppose guns being allowed in our parks. The only question which did cross my mind was not about endangering people, but wondering if it might make people less wise about how they interact with the wildlife. It’s been a few years since I last visited either Yellowstone or Glacier, but geeze, some people just do not get the idea of “do not feed the bears”, etc. My hope is that carrying a fire arm does not enbolden some of these people to take even greater chances with the wildlife (bears, or anything else dangerous) — to the detriment of both themselves AND the wildlife.
The word random is in respect to the fact that the person who is or is not, is unknown. I suspect you are aware of this, and it makes your accusation basely false, she did not lie, she just used a word you didn’t prefer.
No, it is in fact false.
Random implies something that is unknown and unknowable. But carry permittees are known; their behavior is statistically predictable. They are not a chaotic horde given to unpredictable behavior; they are in fact about as stable and predictable as a demographic can be.
So I stand by my term. She’s lying.
The comment is accurate, it may not be in the context you’d like, but it’s still accurate. You owe her an apology, she didn’t lie.
No. The comment is utterly inaccurate. “Random” implies that the average non-carry-permittee has some greater reason to be afraid to go to the National Parks as a result of this decision. Statistically, that is the opposite of the truth, and she either knows it and is lying and spreading hysteria, or is too uninformed to be credible. Pick your poison.
Apology? OK. I’m sorry I didn’t work even harder to derail her re-election.
The string of pejoratives about carry permittees’ motivations are dismissed without comment.
DG,
True, but given that legal carry permittees are as a statistical group so very scrupulous about following self-defense laws (as well as all other laws; remember, CCW permittees are about two orders of magnitude less likely than the general population to commit crime), I’d suspect a brief primer on the laws dealing with the wildlife will suffice.
I’m confident in this.
Fisch,
Talks are underway. Can’t say anything yet.
nor should we restrict the insecure from carrying guns wherever they may need to, to feel secure, even though evidence of such need is non-existent.
I believe the actual wording is:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What’s that about Kansas? I will be getting my permit as soon as I have time to take the class, despite the fact I don’t have anything small enough to comfortably carry. And anyone thinking that concealed weapons were NOT being carried in parks in the past are delusional. Only difference will be the people who DON’T break the law might have one.
D’oh. Sorry – I thought one of those states, KA or NE, was still “no-issue”, like Wisconsin…
Trying to find the list…
Ooops. here’s the list. My apologies, Jayhawks and/or Sooners. You joined the 21st century!
Only two states are utterly “no issue”: Wisconsin and Illinois. In practice, although not in theory, so is Hawaii. All 47 other states (using standard math; Obama may visit several others) have some form of carry permit. 42 are, more or less, “shall issue.”
in practice, although not in theory, so is Hawaii.
“The chief of police may issue a permit to carry . . .”
In practice only cops & other people connected to the chief get permits. I’ve heard business people complain that, when living on the mainland, they got a carry permit because they routinely carried large sums of cash to & from their business. In Hawaii, they could not get a permit.