Stop treating CHL holders as potential criminals
Sen. Feinstein would have you believe that now that the DOI has enacted the rule change that these will now become bastions of criminal activity courtesy of CHL holders. She argues that tourists will soon be assailed by stray bullets, though fails to note why this is not currently the case in National Forests or in any of Ohio's State Parks, which currently do allow CHL holders to be armed.
Originally Posted by Gunco
I wonder how she would have felt when she "needed" to carry a gun, if she were forced to disarm herself every time she went to or from a national park. Would that make sense, or does it make more sense to restrict the movement of a law abiding citizen who has reasonable reason to fear for their safety, lest they be stalked to locations where remaining armed is illegal.
Example, school zones. Let's say that I am a woman who has been threatened by an evil man who I have recently divorced and taken half of his assets, he says is going to kill me for ruining his life... I'm on my way to pick up my child from school... I can't take my gun there and he knows it. Do I not go to pick up my child, do I break the law, or do I just allow my ex-husband to kill me enroute? Apply the same example to the same woman taking her kids camping... Do you think the man who is plotting murder will stop for one second to consider what the ramifications are of carrying a concealed weapon in a state or national park is? Other than perhaps her being disarmed?