I’m not sure I can count all the silly things contained in this article, but I can put all of them in a basket marked “anti-gun buffoons”.
The upshot is that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the groups that has decided that since one guy was shot by a lunatic who should never have had a gun to begin with none of us can ever own a handgun, is nigh unto panic. They are distressed because the Bush Administration has decided that the Second Amendment pertains to National Parks also.
Really, the new deal isn’t all that radical. Basically it says that if you can carry a concealed weapon in a state, you can do it on National Parkland in that state, too. Not a big deal unless you are with the Brady Campaign, in which case you decide never to visit a park again and cancel school field trips.
Seriously.
The fact is that national parks are not any safer because you can’t carry concealed there. One big reason national parks are safer is the National Park Service which has a relatively well-funded police force all to themselves. You are far more likely to see a law enforcement officer in a national park than you are in a state park or on the streets of any average American city. The other big reason is that the gun-toting thugs (who, by the way, tend to ignore gun laws, what with them being criminals and all) aren’t exactly the Yosemite type. So when the anti-gun lawsuit says that this new rule makes the park less safe for people and wildlife, it’s full of beans. I seriously doubt that letting people exercise their Second Amendment rights is goign to put the average bears in any greater danger. I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that the NRA isn’t planning the Great Elk Extermination of 2009 as soon as this rule takes effect.
The Brady Campaign folks are just being their normal pants-wetting selves. Let’s hope that their spurious suit gets laughed out of court, like it should.
