Somehow, 'putting another code in the books' is a bad thing when it reaffirms Second Amendment rights in national parks. 

Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner Daniel White in his Nov. 11 column on examiner.com notes the irony in how some anti-Second Amendment zealots are dealing with the reality that soon law-abiding, legally licensed gun owners will be able to exercise their right to carry a concealed weapon in their national parks. Get this: The same people who love to layer law upon law to restrict rights, are now whining about "putting another code on the books" to unleash those illegally-restricted rights.

Does that makes sense? Well, it does to Todd Wilkinson, as White reports:

"Artist and blogger Todd Wilkinson is unhappy about the upcoming rules change which will permit law abiding citizens to carry defensive firearms in National Parks beginning in February. He asks... 'Always, the first question responsible legislators should ask when writing a law is this: What significant problem is being solved by putting another code on the books?'

"I happen to agree with that particular statement," White writes. "In this case, the significant problem being solved is that visitors to national parks, unlike state and local parks, are having their Second Amendment rights taken away from them and are rendered defenseless. Wilkinson doesn't see this as a problem. He doesn't feel that safety is an issue. 'I have never, after hiking thousands of miles and visiting dozens of national parks, ever felt the need to carry a loaded firearm inside one.' [Wilkinson wrote]

"Classic Liberal thinking," White astutely diagnoses. "Because he hasn't felt the need to carry a gun, nobody should. I'm sure Canadian folk singer Taylor Mitchell didn't feel the need to carry a gun when she went hiking in Cape Breton Highlands National Park in Nova Scotia before being killed by coyotes two weeks ago.Fortunately, a Montana man didn't feel the same way when he was attacked by a Grizzly bear in the Cabinet Mountains [not a national park but it could happen there as well.] He shot and killed the charging bear."

For more, go to: http://www.examiner.com/x-2206-Cleveland-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d11-Do-we-need-guns-in-National-Parks

To choke on Wilkinson's lament, go to: Time Will Only Prove Folly Of New Gun Law For U.S. National Parks; http://www.greateryellowstone.org/news/index.php?id=170

Anti-Second Amendment zealots wasted little time in exploiting the massacre of 13 people at Fort Hood by a gun-wielding loon. But there was also an array of sober, sane responses to the shooting as well -- responses that offered solutions, not ideologic diatribes, responses that say freedom, not repression, is the always the best answer.

Among them, the Washington Times in this Nov. 11 editorial:

"Time after time, public murder sprees occur in 'gun-free zones' - public places where citizens are not legally able to carry guns. The list is long, including massacres at Virginia Tech and Columbine High School along with many less deadly attacks. Last week's slaughter at Fort Hood Army base in Texas was no different - except that one man bears responsibility for the ugly reality that the men and women charged with defending America were deliberately left defenseless when a terrorist opened fire.

"Among President Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.

For more, go to: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/?feat=home_editorials

-- How to Respond to an Active Shooter; http://www.examiner.com/x-18561-Grand-Rapids-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d10-How-to-Respond-to-an-Active-Shooter

-- Time to re-examine rights of Second Amendment; http://www.indystar.com/article/20091111/OPINION01/911110323/1002/OPINION/Time+to+re-examine+rights+of+Second+Amendment

-- Handgun Crowd Returns Fire Post Fort Hood -- No Surprise Here; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mann/handgun-crowd-returns-fir_b_354049.html

-- The Search for Answers in Fort Hood; http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/11/10/the-search-for-answers-in-fort-hood/

-- The Brady Campaign against veterans; http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d9-The-Brady-Campaign-against-veterans

-- Senator Accuses Anti-Gun Group of Exploiting Fort Hood Massacre; http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/06/senator-accuses-anti-gun-group-exploiting-fort-hood-massacre/

-- Fort Hood: Death by gun control; http://www.examiner.com/x-2879-Austin-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d6-Fort-Hood-Death-by-gun-control

Does denying guns to 'prohibited persons' ensure public safety?  

Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea has been writing a series of blogs about the slippery slope in allowing some people to have Constitutional rights, but not others. He asks some intriguing questions that require more than a knee-jerk, emotional response.

"Who is prohibited from owning guns? Who can we trust with guns? Who can we trust with freedom?" he asks. "Many self-described 'law and order conservatives' who support the prohibition, but who also profess to believe in the Second Amendment, would do well to realize that running afoul of a 'gun law' can result in felon status, particularly in locales that prohibit bearing arms -- even if a threat exists. Do they really want to be 'judged by 12' for that, or are they just certain they will never have that decision forced upon them?

"Is public safety enhanced by banning someone like, say, Martha Stewart from owing a gun for the rest of her life? How?

"Is the occasional social pot smoker as much of a danger to society as, say, this guy appears to be?

"If someone is enough of a danger to himself and others to be institutionalized, why would that person be released if they remain a danger?

"As for 'illegal immigrants,' why is it some of the same government actors who hate private ownership of firearms insist on fighting deportation of violent gang members?"

For more, go to: http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d30-Does-denying-guns-to-prohibited-persons-ensure-public-safety

Enlarge Photo

Just got out of the woods in Northern Saskatchewan after a week of stand hunting during the rut. Friday the 13th was my lucky day as this buck strolled by me at about 11:30 on the second to last day of the hunt. Like every mature buck my fellow hunters and I saw in camp this week, he was cruising.

The does and young bucks were content to mill around a bit but the big boys were on a mission and more than one hunter in camp missed an opportunity because he wasn’t ready to pull the trigger when a bruiser walked by.

That’s the way it is with hunting thick timber, though. You spend a lot of hours looking at the same trees, the same birds and the same irritating squirrels and then a buck will appear and, poof, in a few seconds he’s gone. You better be ready.

I was for this guy. My Marlin 336C was on my lap with the forend sitting atop my shooting sticks. I had seen this deer at very first light, but it was about 10 minutes before legal shooting time so I had to let him walk. 

For the first hour of the day I had a number of does come by as well as a small 7-point and a spike. I was hoping this 4x5 would take another cruise by my stand while searching for a doe and I wasn’t disappointed.

As soon as I saw him come out of the woods to my left I got the gun up and thumbed back the hammer. He stepped into a clear lane at about 50 yards and I shot. The 200-grain flex tip bullet in my .35 Rem. quartered through his chest and lodged under the skin in the off shoulder. He didn’t make it 50 yards before collapsing.

There are many reasons to love lever-actions, but the short 20-inch barrel and compact overall size are perfect when hunting from a confined blind.