Grainy image of my own Sig Sauer P-239 .357. I've owned this menace for three years. My personal Murder Rate to date: Human Beings: 0 Innocent Paper Targets: More than I can count.
On December 5th the Bush administration overturned the 25 year old federal prohibition of carrying firearms in national parks and wild life refuges. The reaction by the Brady Campaign was swift and predictable as they are suing the Bush administration to stop the policy from being enacted. Here's a quote from the above linked article that, for me, illustrates the cult like mentality of the Brady Campaign:
The lawsuit said members of the Brady Campaign will no longer visit national parks and refuges "out of fear for their personal safety from those who will now be permitted to carry loaded and concealed weapons in such areas."Naturally, allow a person to pack heat and a blood bath ensues. As someone who resides in a state with the most lax gun laws in the country I can attest to the lawlessness and carnage. 2007 saw a staggering 1.9 murders per 100,000 people here in Vermont. In comparison, the Brady Campaigns poster child for gun control, California, posted an impressive 6.2 murders per 100,000 people (the national average was 5.6, way to go CA!) Clearly the answer to social violence is strict gun control. Right?
Opening up our federally administered parks and wild life refuges to gun toting savages will result in countless OK Corral like showdowns. Because, as the statistics clearly show, perverted and violent minds don't kill people, savages legally packing heat kill people.
Side note: The above mentioned gun ban was implemented under the Reagan administration. I hunted around for an historical account of the reason for that ban and came up empty. Given it's wording ("firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk") I suspect it, like most restrictions here in VT, has poaching and not criminality in mind. I welcome factual and sourced input regarding this assumption.
The Department of the Interior's FAQ regarding this decision is here (PDF; nod to Volokh Conspiracy.) An important caveat regarding the decision that will likely not get much press is that the decision allows for statutory imminence. In other words states can adapt/redact according to their existing statutory regulations.