News, sports, politics, blogs and forums for International Falls, Minnesota • (218) 285-7411

International Falls, Minnesota

Click to Login
No account? Sign up!

Advertising

Advertising

VNP to allow concealed weapons


» Read similar stories filed under:

Beginning Jan. 5, visitors to Voyageurs National Park who have a Minnesota permit to carry will be able to bring a concealed firearm into the park.

The change in the law applies to all national parks and wildlife refuges and visitors must have a permit to carry in the state where the national park or refuge is located, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Three national parks, located in Wisconsin and Illinois, are excluded from the law because permits to carry are not issued in those states.

The new regulation applies to handguns only, and requires that the handgun be concealed. The permit holder must have possession of the carry permit and a government-issued photo identification.

The permit holder must, when asked, disclose to a law enforcement officer that they are a permit holder and are carrying a concealed weapon, according to Jim Hummel, chief ranger at Voyageurs National Park.

The change was proposed by 51 U.S. senators to allow visitors to transport and carry firearms consistent with state law. Since the existing regulation banning firearms in national parks was adopted in 1983, 48 states have passed legislation allowing the lawful possession of concealed weapons, according to the Department of Interior.

Firearms will continue to be prohibited in federal buildings including VNP’s visitors centers, park headquarters, tour boats and the Kettle Falls hotel, according to Hummel.

Advertisement. Article continues below.

The new regulation doesn’t protect permit holders from federal prosecution for any firearm-related crime, such as violations of the conditions of the state permit, discharging a firearm, endangering public safety, destruction of wildlife or property or negligent storage of a loaded firearm, according to Hummel.

Hummel said park staff are concerned about how it will impact contact between park rangers and visitors.

“The safety of all visitors, staff and wildlife is extremely important. Park staff will work to ensure that there are no misunderstandings that could cause unnecessary concerns to visitors or threaten park resources,” Hummel said.

During a public comment period held in the spring, the Department of the Interior received 140,000 comments on the change. Those in opposition to the law included the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, the Association of National Park Rangers, the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Parks Conservation Association, in addition to seven former directors of the National Park Service.

In a statement issued jointly by the agencies, they said their opposition stems from the belief that the law change will increase impulse killings of wildlife and risks to visitor and ranger safety.




Didn't we hear the same...

Back to page top

Didn't we hear the same whiny and baseless arguments when the conceal and carry law was passed in Minnesota? The opposition believed that blood would run in the streets over minor traffic accidents and that it would be like the Wild West.

As it turns out, the light rail system between downtown Minneapolis and the Mall of America has been a larger detriment to public safety than incidents stemming from the conceal and carry law.

People who obtain conceal and carry permits are law abiding citizens. If they were not law abiding then they could not obtain a permit in the first place.


Submitted by paradox on December 23, 2008 - 3:23pm.

"impulse killings of...

Back to page top

"impulse killings of wildlife and risks to visitor and ranger safety"! GAG ME!

Well, the arrogant, supercillious, and condescending SERVANTS of the citizens had their say and were rejected in favor of the constitution and common sense. Now, they try to impose stupid qualifiers on the right which had been banned before in order to achieve the same result. They don't give up. They still want it "backwards, inside out, and upside down." They don't accept that they were hired to serve, not to be masters. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." I'm surprised that they didn't say that they do it "for our own good" or "for the children." It's the same brainlessness and lack of respect for others, as well as denial of their duty to protect and to serve.

How about approaching the citizen with the same respect and professionalism required of them, as servants, during the hunting seasons? "Impulse killings," and "risks to . . . safety!" My Lord! It's too simple! It's fundamental.

The Minnesota statute talks about a person "who carries, holds, or possesses a pistol in a motor vehicle, snowmobile, or boat, or on or about the person's clothes or the person, or otherwise in possession or control in a public place, as defined . . ." Nowhere in the statute is there the word "concealed" or a definition thereof, because Minnesota law doesn't care HOW you carry, only that you ARE, and that you are permitted to do so. That means "open" carry is allowed in Minnesota. The new regulation ALLOWS people to carry concealed (it uses the word "may") and does not REQUIRE or otherwise mandate such a manner of carry with any word(s) such as "only" or other limitation; AND it continues with "in accordance with the laws of the state in which the national park, or that portion thereof, is located." There is no definition of "concealed" to guide the citizen AND, more importantly, to control this attempt at imposing a qualifier on the right, which Congress did not intend (or it would have said so), which will, in turn, will lead to arbitrary and capricious enforcement (harassment?) of law abiding citizens acting in accordance with state law.

As far as the Rangers are concerned, instead of guessing as to whether an individual is carrying a loaded gun, and acting out of fear and loathing and ignorance, they should be grateful that open carry, such as in a holster, will give them visual information and confirmation of the status of the citizen/visitor. Then they can act, respectfully, with knowledge, instead of on the basis of what they don't know. It's called "probable cause." It, too, is in the constitution.

Wake up!


Submitted by David_Gross on December 25, 2008 - 8:12pm.

I am more on the carry side...

Back to page top

I am more on the carry side than the other side.

That said, I do still question why the law was changed to alter what seemed to be the best approach: leave it to a local Sheriff or Police Chief to decide on a concealed carry permit. It is a basic conservative principle that the best government is local government: it's a lot easier to let a County Commissioner know what you think than your US Senator: a few thousand constituents vs. a few million constituents.

When the concealed carry folks did not get the answer they wanted from their Sheriff or Chief they did not look for a local correction (ie: heat on the Sheriff through locally elected officials or his own re-election) instead they took the big government approach and passed a one size fits all concealed carry law at the state level.


Submitted by bayside on December 25, 2008 - 11:45pm.


Recent comments

Advertising

Advertising

Who's online

There are currently 2 users and 485 guests online.

Online users

  • sparky84
  • Tammie Calder

Who's new

  • sparky84
  • martysharp2
  • ifallsgirl
  • akl25
  • EBJG

Today's Poll


» Read similar stories filed under:


1

Advertising